Talk:Atlantic Avenue (New York City)

message: This avenue covers as many miles, or more, in Queens and should not be parenthesized only for "Brooklyn".
:done RustyCale 13:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I thought Eastern Parkway was the Champs-Élysées of Brooklyn; I understand Grand Army Plaza was directly inspired by the Arc de Triomphe.--Pharos 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it now.  See here.--Pharos 15:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champs-Élysées of Brooklyn? 

message: Can this article go into detail on why it's in :Category:Robert Moses projects? --NE2 05:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't explain that, nor how this article falls under the proposed USRD scope. This street comes across as not much more than a long city street. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the NYC truck route map () it's the only through truck route across Brooklyn (not even NY 27 is available), essentially doing what I-78 doesn't. I think that's enough to qualify under any proposed scope. --NE2 07:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be added to the article then before tagging it, as it makes no mention of it... --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 08:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed tag since the article makes no mention of this claim. As I hinted above, if an article is tagged as being under USRD scope, I shouldn't have to ask why it was tagged as such every time; it should be apparent in the content of the article. I would add it, but I'm not the one that tagged the article and thus not the one claiming it falls within project scope. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "This project covers all roads in the United States." --NE2 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So much for your proposed scope revamp then... --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Proposed" is the operative word, and this would be under the scope anyway. --NE2 00:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, your quote above implies that you've thrown your own proposal into the trash. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way have I done that? That's quoted directly from WP:USRD, and is the scope that should be used when tagging articles. --NE2 01:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the only reason that's still the scope is that no one changed it. No one disagreed with your proposal. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I changed it. It's still in the scope. I'm going to add the truck route fact to the article, which you could have done rather than removing the tag. --NE2 01:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should I have to add it? I'm not the one declaring it within the scope of USRD. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave a source that shows it's within USRD, and you didn't disagree. Removing the tag is just obstinacy. --NE2 02:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easier to remove the tag than it is to add a claim I didn't research. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easier to accept others' research. Anyway, I'm not interested in this argument, since I'm actually doing something constructive. --NE2 02:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts are best written by those who have researched them. And this "argument" is taking time out of my schedule as well; your time is no more important than mine. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody's forcing you to reply here; this will be my last reply to this thread. --NE2 02:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Moses?