Talk:Hope Memorial Bridge

message: In the mean time, I will add sources below as I find them (and I encourage others to do the same).  Levdr1lp / talk 18:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a gray background to sources which claim the bridge was named specifically for Harry Hope.  Levdr1lp / talk 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I've added a vanilla background to sources which claim the bridge was named for the Hope family (which leaves the standard plain white background for sources which claim bridge was named specifically for Bob Hope).  Levdr1lp / talk 20:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronological source list

message: At issue is how to describe the renaming of the bridge which is the subject of this article, from "Lorain–Carnegie Bridge" to "Hope Memorial Bridge".  There are conflicting sources (see list above): while all sources acknowledge a connection to Bob Hope, some sources state the bridge was named in his father Harry's honor (a local stonemason who helped construct the bridge); some for Bob Hope; others state the bridge was named for the Hope family; still others Harry Hope and other stonemasons; etc.  Please read the sources for yourself, or if you can, find additional ones.  Levdr1lp / talk 15:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My proposal - "From 1980-1983, the bridge was closed for renovations. On September 1, 1983, the bridge was reopened, and during a ceremony was renamed in honor of William Henry "Harry" Hope, a stonemason who helped build the "Guardians of Traffic" sculptures.  Harry Hope is also the father of actor/comedian and longtime Cleveland resident Bob Hope, and in the ensuing years since the bridge was renamed, the entertainer has also been cited as having the bridge being named in his honor, and likewise the entire Hope family (noting their roots both in the city of Cleveland and in the stonemason profession)."  This isn't about one or the other, as there's plenty of evidence to show that everybody has a piece of this pie. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "On September 1, 1983, the Lorain–Carnegie bridge was officially renamed the "Hope Memorial Bridge"; initial reports claimed the bridge was renamed in honor of William Henry 'Harry' Hope, a local stonemason who helped build the 'Guardians of Traffic' sculptures, and the father of comedian and former Cleveland resident Bob Hope. In the years since the dedication, however, sources have differed various claims have been made claims have varied as to who exactly the bridge honors.  Some have claimed the bridge was renamed specifically for Bob Hope;Congressional Record (May 21, 2002) - Rep. Dennis Kucinich: "The city of Cleveland claims [Bob Hope as one of their favorite sons and has named a major bridge after him..."]
*Buffalo.com, "The Definitive Biography of Bob Hope" (November 8, 2014) - "Memorials to [Bob Hope are proliferated across the American landscape...cross the Cuyahoga River across the Hope Memorial Bridge in Cleveland..."] others the entire Hope family;Cuyahoga County: The First 200 years (2011 book) - "... renamed the Hope Memorial Bridge in honor of the family of comedian and actor Bob Hope"
* and still others have claimed it recognizes Harry Hope along with the other workers who helped erect the giant concrete pylons."
===RfC Responses===
*Comment Responding to RfC I prefer the second proposal by Levdr1lp as a basis, partly for reasons of brevity, partly because in this instance, the local contemporary source seems more likely to be reliable. However, it could be made more neutral by moving 'in honor of William Henry 'Harry' Hope, a local stonemason who helped build the 'Guardians of Traffic' sculptures, and the father of comedian and former Cleveland resident Bob Hope'  to after the 'claims have varied as to who exactly the bridge honors'. That is, moving from 'truth' to 'principal claim'. Pincrete (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

text: A good point I hadn't considered.  Let readers judge for themselves without implying the 1983 reporting is any more accurate than the later claims.  Levdr1lp / talk 19:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool with me.  This way no one claim holds any more weight than the others.  Vjmlhds (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - Do you have any further comment?  If not, then I will withdraw my question and close the RfC.  The original dispute was between  and myself, but the two of us now appear to agree with you on the same wording.  The issue can always be revisited at some point in the future, but I think we can move on for now.  Levdr1lp / talk 21:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Close ahead. That was easy!Pincrete (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While not exactly what you suggested, , I have edited my revised proposal above in an attempt to address your point.  Satisfied?  If yes, I will close.  Levdr1lp / talk 21:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Boldly closing.  Levdr1lp / talk 21:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks, guys, for adding your versions above.  To attract comments, it's best if this RFC doesn't look like just a bunch of squabbling, so I collapse this bit.  Let's pause and wait for the requested comments to come in.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

text: I suggest adding the supporting citations, and a reflist-talk template just below each version to segregate their sources (or put just one reflist-talk if you prefer).  Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - I have added a  template to my proposal per your suggestion (incidentally, I'm not demanding that you "man up" and pick one proposal over the other).  Levdr1lp / talk 05:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

text:   In your version, if you replace "sources have differed" with "various claims have been made" and "and still others" with "while others", I think we'll have this thing nailed.  Your version sounded too much like "Wiki-ese".  I think these modifications will make the article sound more in line with how regular people talk. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Better to say what the sources support, rather than talk about the sources.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the "sources" phrasing in my proposal per Vjmlhds' suggestion.  Levdr1lp / talk 12:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Levdr's revamped proposal looks good to me, I say we run with it. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - If like  you're satisfied with my revised proposal, I'm willing to withdraw and close this RfC.  Levdr1lp / talk 16:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just let the RFC run.  If you guys can agree on a version in the mean time, don't hesitate.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - I'm not sure you follow.  As the editor who posted this RfC, I plan to withdraw the original "question" posed here (how to deal w/ the renaming of the bridge) and close this RfC, given that Vjmlhds and I are now in agreement.  If, however, you prefer to provide additional input, then I will "let the RfC run".  Otherwise I think this matter is settled.  Levdr1lp / talk 02:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I take this as him saying let the RFC run to see if others want to chime in, but that since we have agreed on how to proceed, it's OK to go ahead and edit the article accordingly, which I have done (I think I have it right, if not, feel free to tweak it). Vjmlhds (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - If  chooses not to provide any additional input, then as the editor who opened this RfC, I plan to close it as we appear to have reached an agreement on the wording in question.  Levdr1lp / talk 02:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

text: - I'm not sure what exactly  meant by his last post.  Either we've reached consensus or we haven't; if we have, then I don't see much point in keeping this RfC open (we have settled the original dispute, haven't we?).  It's not as if the issue couldn't be revisted in the future with another discussion, or even another RfC.  In any case, I would ask you, Vjmlhds, to please wait until this RfC has actually closed before making any changes to the content in question: "Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved."  Levdr1lp / talk 14:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, we have reached consensus.  We hashed it out, and came to a compromise We both put forth proposals, we made suggestions, and met in the middle.  We took your proposal, tweaked it a little, and came up with something we can both live with.  As far as I'm concerned, we have come to an agreement.  Since we were the ones who were "fussin' and feudin", and were able to work it out amongst ourselves (with Dicklyon essentially acting as referee), there's no need for the RFC. Since you were the one who opened the RFC, you are within your rights to close it when you see fit.  And because we have settled our differences (regarding this issue), the need for the RFC is now nil.  Vjmlhds (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - This RfC remains open, and I do not support making changes until Dicklyon clarifies his last post.  If he either supports my revised proposal as you do, or remains indifferent, then I will withdraw the question I posed (how to word the renaming) and close this RfC.  Until that happens, please leave the last stable version prior to our dispute in place.  Levdr1lp / talk 15:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  - I think Dicklyon's silence speaks volumes.  Don't you see - he was trying to get us to figure it out ourselves and come to an agreement...which we did.  It's quite clear to me, that the only reason he involved himself to begin with was to turn the temperature down in the room a bit, and get us to quit our usual routine and hash this thing out.  The fact he isn't responding tells me that he believes that we have done what we needed to do, and has moved on with his life.  I'm really starting to get the vibe that you are holding out because you thrive on keeping the conflict going, and only want to end it on YOUR terms, as if I have to be submissive to your whims.  We worked out a compromise, so there's no longer a dispute over content.  Now it's just a matter of me wanting to get this done so we can move on, while you are holding out as long as you can so YOU can have the final say.  Vjmlhds (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - You do realize that a fourth editor had now weighed in, don't you?  This is precisely why I'm asking you to let this RfC play out.  This isn't a race.  Levdr1lp / talk 20:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

text: I have edited the article in a way I feel that respects Levdr's viewpoint, but in a less "controversial" tone. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just pretend someone will come, and I will be your audience alone if they don't.  In the mean time, stop the edit warring and let's discuss.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again I have restored the stable July 19 version following edits made by .  I ask that Vjmlhds please refrain from making further changes related to the bridge's renaming until consensus is reached here, and/or this RfC is closed.  Levdr1lp / talk 22:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet, I have restored the version from July 15 prior to any of my contributions to this article, bridge renaming or otherwise.  Levdr1lp / talk 23:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not edit warring, just trying to make a simple edit.  If anybody is edit warring it's Levdr, who has a "my way or the highway" approach, as if I have to clear it with him before I make any edit (seriously...he is always on my back, and going right behind me undoing any edit I make).  Forgive me if I sound exasperated, but I've been dealing with this guy for 5 years...it's like what do i have to do to have some peace around here?  Vjmlhds (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again you have declared yourself judge, jury, and executioner..."Thou must clear it by ME before thou can proceed" Vjmlhds (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored my previous comment here after it was removed by , probably by mistake.  Levdr1lp / talk 23:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My God...this talk page went from literally nothing to all of this in just a couple of days, because of basically one editor's obsession with giving me a hard time.  You know what, I'm done arguing about this article...the juice is clearly not worth the squeeze if I have to go through all of this freaking hassle just to make a simple edit.   You can take this article, shine it up real nice, turn it sideways, and stick it....somewhere. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - Wow, I hate break it to you, but my concern has to do with your edits (specifically those regarding the renaming of the bridge which is the subject of this article), not you!  I would think that all of the sources I found, and all of the reasoned points I've made on this talk page would be some indication of my good faith effort to get the right information out there.  I'm sorry to say it, but I think you're more likely lashing out with this paranoid nonsense because you're not getting your way.  Let me be clear: I have no problem whatsoever if your version, or something like your version, is what we ultimately decide on here... but there must be consensus for it!  You aren't even trying to come to a compromise on this talk page. No, you would rather force through your changes in the article itself, in the absence of support from other editors, and hope that we will just reluctantly accept them.  I am very much willing to work with you, but not through the article, and not through edit summaries.  Now let's hash out this content dispute, right here in this RfC.  Please.  Levdr1lp / talk 23:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

text: - RfC's can run for 30 days, so other editors may very well find their way here if the discussion runs that long.  But I see no reason why the 3 of us can't reach consensus ourselves.  There's always other options, too: contact other editors who have made significant contributions here (neutrally); reach out to other relevant Wikiprojects; reach out to the Village Pump; etc.  Levdr1lp / talk 00:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is just complete and total BS.  Let's go...right here, right now and end this.  I have my version on record, you have yours.  Since  was gracious enough to be the 3rd voice, we'll let him decide, his word is law, and I'll accept whatever his decision is, good, bad, or indifferent.  There is no need for bureaucratic nonsense and red tape.  Just make a decision, put it to bed, and move on with life.  Vjmlhds (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on renaming the bridge 

message: *Comment Responding to RfC I prefer the second proposal by Levdr1lp as a basis, partly for reasons of brevity, partly because in this instance, the local contemporary source seems more likely to be reliable. However, it could be made more neutral by moving 'in honor of William Henry 'Harry' Hope, a local stonemason who helped build the 'Guardians of Traffic' sculptures, and the father of comedian and former Cleveland resident Bob Hope'  to after the 'claims have varied as to who exactly the bridge honors'. That is, moving from 'truth' to 'principal claim'. Pincrete (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point I hadn't considered.  Let readers judge for themselves without implying the 1983 reporting is any more accurate than the later claims.  Levdr1lp / talk 19:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool with me.  This way no one claim holds any more weight than the others.  Vjmlhds (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - Do you have any further comment?  If not, then I will withdraw my question and close the RfC.  The original dispute was between  and myself, but the two of us now appear to agree with you on the same wording.  The issue can always be revisited at some point in the future, but I think we can move on for now.  Levdr1lp / talk 21:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Close ahead. That was easy!Pincrete (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While not exactly what you suggested, , I have edited my revised proposal above in an attempt to address your point.  Satisfied?  If yes, I will close.  Levdr1lp / talk 21:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Boldly closing.  Levdr1lp / talk 21:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC Responses

message: In the previous section,  and I already did agree on the first sentence in my proposal.  For whatever that's worth.  Levdr1lp / talk 19:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, guys, for adding your versions above.  To attract comments, it's best if this RFC doesn't look like just a bunch of squabbling, so I collapse this bit.  Let's pause and wait for the requested comments to come in.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

text: I suggest adding the supporting citations, and a reflist-talk template just below each version to segregate their sources (or put just one reflist-talk if you prefer).  Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - I have added a  template to my proposal per your suggestion (incidentally, I'm not demanding that you "man up" and pick one proposal over the other).  Levdr1lp / talk 05:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

text:   In your version, if you replace "sources have differed" with "various claims have been made" and "and still others" with "while others", I think we'll have this thing nailed.  Your version sounded too much like "Wiki-ese".  I think these modifications will make the article sound more in line with how regular people talk. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Better to say what the sources support, rather than talk about the sources.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the "sources" phrasing in my proposal per Vjmlhds' suggestion.  Levdr1lp / talk 12:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Levdr's revamped proposal looks good to me, I say we run with it. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - If like  you're satisfied with my revised proposal, I'm willing to withdraw and close this RfC.  Levdr1lp / talk 16:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just let the RFC run.  If you guys can agree on a version in the mean time, don't hesitate.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - I'm not sure you follow.  As the editor who posted this RfC, I plan to withdraw the original "question" posed here (how to deal w/ the renaming of the bridge) and close this RfC, given that Vjmlhds and I are now in agreement.  If, however, you prefer to provide additional input, then I will "let the RfC run".  Otherwise I think this matter is settled.  Levdr1lp / talk 02:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I take this as him saying let the RFC run to see if others want to chime in, but that since we have agreed on how to proceed, it's OK to go ahead and edit the article accordingly, which I have done (I think I have it right, if not, feel free to tweak it). Vjmlhds (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - If  chooses not to provide any additional input, then as the editor who opened this RfC, I plan to close it as we appear to have reached an agreement on the wording in question.  Levdr1lp / talk 02:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

text: - I'm not sure what exactly  meant by his last post.  Either we've reached consensus or we haven't; if we have, then I don't see much point in keeping this RfC open (we have settled the original dispute, haven't we?).  It's not as if the issue couldn't be revisted in the future with another discussion, or even another RfC.  In any case, I would ask you, Vjmlhds, to please wait until this RfC has actually closed before making any changes to the content in question: "Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved."  Levdr1lp / talk 14:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, we have reached consensus.  We hashed it out, and came to a compromise We both put forth proposals, we made suggestions, and met in the middle.  We took your proposal, tweaked it a little, and came up with something we can both live with.  As far as I'm concerned, we have come to an agreement.  Since we were the ones who were "fussin' and feudin", and were able to work it out amongst ourselves (with Dicklyon essentially acting as referee), there's no need for the RFC. Since you were the one who opened the RFC, you are within your rights to close it when you see fit.  And because we have settled our differences (regarding this issue), the need for the RFC is now nil.  Vjmlhds (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - This RfC remains open, and I do not support making changes until Dicklyon clarifies his last post.  If he either supports my revised proposal as you do, or remains indifferent, then I will withdraw the question I posed (how to word the renaming) and close this RfC.  Until that happens, please leave the last stable version prior to our dispute in place.  Levdr1lp / talk 15:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  - I think Dicklyon's silence speaks volumes.  Don't you see - he was trying to get us to figure it out ourselves and come to an agreement...which we did.  It's quite clear to me, that the only reason he involved himself to begin with was to turn the temperature down in the room a bit, and get us to quit our usual routine and hash this thing out.  The fact he isn't responding tells me that he believes that we have done what we needed to do, and has moved on with his life.  I'm really starting to get the vibe that you are holding out because you thrive on keeping the conflict going, and only want to end it on YOUR terms, as if I have to be submissive to your whims.  We worked out a compromise, so there's no longer a dispute over content.  Now it's just a matter of me wanting to get this done so we can move on, while you are holding out as long as you can so YOU can have the final say.  Vjmlhds (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - You do realize that a fourth editor had now weighed in, don't you?  This is precisely why I'm asking you to let this RfC play out.  This isn't a race.  Levdr1lp / talk 20:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

text: I have edited the article in a way I feel that respects Levdr's viewpoint, but in a less "controversial" tone. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just pretend someone will come, and I will be your audience alone if they don't.  In the mean time, stop the edit warring and let's discuss.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again I have restored the stable July 19 version following edits made by .  I ask that Vjmlhds please refrain from making further changes related to the bridge's renaming until consensus is reached here, and/or this RfC is closed.  Levdr1lp / talk 22:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet, I have restored the version from July 15 prior to any of my contributions to this article, bridge renaming or otherwise.  Levdr1lp / talk 23:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not edit warring, just trying to make a simple edit.  If anybody is edit warring it's Levdr, who has a "my way or the highway" approach, as if I have to clear it with him before I make any edit (seriously...he is always on my back, and going right behind me undoing any edit I make).  Forgive me if I sound exasperated, but I've been dealing with this guy for 5 years...it's like what do i have to do to have some peace around here?  Vjmlhds (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again you have declared yourself judge, jury, and executioner..."Thou must clear it by ME before thou can proceed" Vjmlhds (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored my previous comment here after it was removed by , probably by mistake.  Levdr1lp / talk 23:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My God...this talk page went from literally nothing to all of this in just a couple of days, because of basically one editor's obsession with giving me a hard time.  You know what, I'm done arguing about this article...the juice is clearly not worth the squeeze if I have to go through all of this freaking hassle just to make a simple edit.   You can take this article, shine it up real nice, turn it sideways, and stick it....somewhere. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - Wow, I hate break it to you, but my concern has to do with your edits (specifically those regarding the renaming of the bridge which is the subject of this article), not you!  I would think that all of the sources I found, and all of the reasoned points I've made on this talk page would be some indication of my good faith effort to get the right information out there.  I'm sorry to say it, but I think you're more likely lashing out with this paranoid nonsense because you're not getting your way.  Let me be clear: I have no problem whatsoever if your version, or something like your version, is what we ultimately decide on here... but there must be consensus for it!  You aren't even trying to come to a compromise on this talk page. No, you would rather force through your changes in the article itself, in the absence of support from other editors, and hope that we will just reluctantly accept them.  I am very much willing to work with you, but not through the article, and not through edit summaries.  Now let's hash out this content dispute, right here in this RfC.  Please.  Levdr1lp / talk 23:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

text: - RfC's can run for 30 days, so other editors may very well find their way here if the discussion runs that long.  But I see no reason why the 3 of us can't reach consensus ourselves.  There's always other options, too: contact other editors who have made significant contributions here (neutrally); reach out to other relevant Wikiprojects; reach out to the Village Pump; etc.  Levdr1lp / talk 00:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is just complete and total BS.  Let's go...right here, right now and end this.  I have my version on record, you have yours.  Since  was gracious enough to be the 3rd voice, we'll let him decide, his word is law, and I'll accept whatever his decision is, good, bad, or indifferent.  There is no need for bureaucratic nonsense and red tape.  Just make a decision, put it to bed, and move on with life.  Vjmlhds (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: "The inaugural Guardian Mile road race will be run across the bridge on August 11, 2018"
Did it happen?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CA10:18A0:8C49:EC89:C30B:AADF (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  the future has passed 

message: The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History entry for the bridge (citation in "External links") calls the statues the "Guardians of Traffic"; a no less credible source, the Cleveland State University Center for Public History, calls them the "Guardians of Transportation", a name which has been reverted from the WP article in the past. Interestingly, the former cites the latter. The only difference that I could see between them is that the latter is a blog entry, and there's a chance that the author may have misspoken. Mapsax (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Retracted the "dubious" template, although the Ideastream source that I added quotes one of the editors of the ECH so there's an outside chance that this might be circular. Mapsax (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Guardians of Traffic" vs. "Guardians of Transportation"