Talk:Commonwealth Avenue (Boston)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This source seems to imply that Olmstead designed the Newton portion of Comm Ave in 1893. Another source implies that Olmstead commented on but did not design the Back Bay portion. It would be informative to figure out the whole story of Olmstead's involvement, and also nail down exactly when each segment of the road was designed and constructed and what the original design consisted of (e.g. whether or not it had integrated rail lines, trees, art, etc.). -- Beland 02:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Commonwealth Avenue Reconstruction and Landscape Improvements (pdf format)
Commonwealth Avenue article
Hello Pzavon, small capitals are used to limit the disruption of text. Full capitals do not compliment lowercase and introduce great contrast. Small capitals limit the disruption of texture and reduce disruption of the reading process.
You reverted most of my edits on the text, most of it edited to sound more like spoken language, for wiki MoS, or, for better grammar and structure. The article was rife with bad grammatical structure and poorly organized. In future please try to include an edit summary explaining why your changes. Your first round of edits that reverted most of my edits had no edit summary. Thanks. CApitol3 (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with your assessment that my edits were more like spoken language. They were intended to improve clarity, in part by minimizing unnecessaryly long words and phrases when shorter would do just as well. This is called "copy editing" and that is what I put in the edit summary. I see no value in trying to describe each such alteration specifically in an edit summary.
- With regard to use of capitols, the use of capitols in acronyms for proper names is quite normal. I've never seen small sizing such as you did in that context. "MBTA" is the standard acronym for that organization and is properly tied to the next several words as a single phrase. Making the four letter smaller places undue visiual emphasis there. I will again remove your smaller HTML coding.
- If the article is "rife with bad grammatical structure" change it. That's what I was doing with your edits. Pzavon (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pzavon, I want to suggest that you have misread some of my comments. Wikipeidia style is encylopedic and accessible, and should be written, where possible, in spoken style. A few subjects, maths and science might require language most of us don't grasp, but urban planning/street descriptions can be explained in a conversational style. That was my intent. I was not attempting to make it florid, complex, or inpenetratable. More, I was attempting to use a tone more like other wikipedia articles on the subject of architecture and urban planning. A basic premise of writing is to organize paragraphs around an idea. The text was quite disorganized, and organizing information is a part of editing. I was not suggesting that you had made your edits like spoken language. That would be something I would not undo. I was stating that I had made my edits to sound like spoken language. You misread that. Your first round of edits, where you effectively reverted close to 90 percent of my edits, had no edit summary. You state that you "see no value in trying to describe each such alteration specifically in an edit summary" wikipedia policy disagrees. And an edit where you alter substantially a previous edit calls for such. Thanks. CApitol3 (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I do not understand your reference to the MOS policy not to limit it to acronyms. With specific regard to use of acronyms, see for example the usage throughout the Wikipedia for SEPTA, MARTA, and BART, the acronyms for the subways in Philadelphia, Atlanta, and San Francisco, respectively. All are always presented in normal sized characters. This is also the case with less closely related acronyms such as EPA, OSHA, FDA, DOT, and lots of other governmental alphabet soup. Pzavon (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)