Talk:Coving (urban planning)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
Why was all this good information removed from the article? [1] ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 06:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Because the editor who made those edits is the sock of a banned editor. Banned editors are not allowed to edit. -Will Beback 06:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we please just leave this? It's fascinating as it is (the urban planning version). I don't care who made it. Can you guys just please carry on your conflicts somewhere else? Don't take this bullshit to extremes like this. If this is changed back to the architecture thing, can anyone, and I mean anyone, who agrees that this should be the detailed article, please contact me and I'll restore it under my name. My edits aren't, so far as I know, autoreverted. Grace Note 10:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Project polices are no personal animosities. I have nothing against the editor personally. If you want to keep this text please find sources for it. -Will Beback · † · 10:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." This is the policy. Now, as is usual in disputed edits, could you please make clear what exactly you dispute in this article? There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that are not fully sourced. It's considered that they will eventually become perfect. Why you want to extend your war with another editor to me is a mystery, but I am not just going to give into you because you wave a policy at me. It would be better for you to just let the content stand and go and do something more useful with your time, but if you won't, you must go through the motions, Will. Grace Note 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-
Can I appeal to editors who have good sources for this material to email them to me rather than breach the policies of Wikipedia, which I do not support their doing? I will happily source every word if I have to -- although this standard is not applied generally in Wikipedia -- but I won't allow an article that explains something that is interesting to be destroyed because of its provenance. That is silly. Grace Note 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Revert wars
This article is, as anyone who bothered giving it the least attention can quickly ascertain, factual. This is a real practice and the guy mentioned, if he didn't invent it, he is associated with it. No one actually has a problem with the contents of the article, that's clear. It is not controversial, does not push a point of view, is not false or a discredit in any way to Wikipedia. It's not urgent to source articles like this (although they should be sourced, as any other should, in due course) in the way it is to source those about living persons, and many articles on Wikipedia remain poorly sourced because, simply, they are not controversial.
The controversy is wholly caused by this article's having been created by an editor who has been involved in a conflict with other editors here, which led to his ban. I recognise the names of the gatekeepers who are trying to keep it out and of course I'm aware that they were involved in that conflict. They can be taken not to have an interest in real estate and not to have any good reason to want this article gone. The same is absolutely true of User:Calton, whose purpose is clear to those who know him. He and I have had our disagreements in the past, not usually over anything of any real consequence, and not usually to any great purpose or effect.
Now I could have a huge conflict over this article with those involved. Some might enjoy that. It would have nothing to do with the article on their part. Nothing. And everything to do with it on my part. I have no problem with Willbeback, or Calton, whose disagreements with me I have forgotten (so that I can only remember a general impression of him), and I'm sure they are on the whole constructive.
Talk of sources is simply a means, and they are well aware of it, to an end. It is to use a tactic that I deplore, to use the policies of Wikipedia not for the purpose they were intended, which is to create an encyclopaedia, but for personal ends. Both editors who have brandished WP:OWN know perfectly well that I have not expressed any desire to own the article. It is thoroughly dishonest of them to suggest otherwise, because they are well aware that I simply think it should be kept even if it was written by a banned editor. How are they aware of that? I wrote it! I wrote it on this page and on Will's talkpage. I explained what I was doing and pointed to the policy in question. These are intelligent men. They know what has happened here.
But I'm not going to have a conflict. I am done with that. The petty politics of Wikipedia are boring, a huge timesink for everyone involved. I'm going to let Willbeback and supporters destroy this article for his personal reasons and I will take it off my watchlist. But I am writing this simply to express my dismay at that outcome. I will not answer any further discussion on my talkpage or in any other forum on this issue. I am just thoroughly disappointed that editors will allow their personal feelings to direct the destruction of content when the aim of their being here is purportedly to create an encyclopaedia. Grace Note 03:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Really, Grace Note, is it that hard to add a reference? --Duk 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV problem
As it stands, the article mentions only advantages of this method of street layout and does not mention any disadvantages. Off the top of my head, I suspect there must be several disadvantages, including probably:
- More difficult to find addresses and navigate efficiently - must be annoying to people generally and a safety hazzard with respect to emergency vehicles who are slower to respond to emergencies
- Vehicle speed is reduced thereby producing a drag on the economy as people lose time in driving through the neighborhoods
- Altering the lot size and shape must cause issues with respect to requiring more complex surveys for erecting new fences and the like. Even things like mowing the yard is harder.
- There may be some non-uniformity of house-plan design needed to accomodate the varying lot shpaes. This may lead to increased building costs.
The above may or may not be proven disadvantages, but I strongly suspect this planning form has its critics. The criticisms should be noted in the article to balance out the stated advantages. Johntex\talk 04:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable - find some references and expand the article ;) --Duk 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
