User talk:Tom guyette

Welcome!

Hello, Tom guyette, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Quentin Pierce 22:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answer as best I can

I believe the articles do go against Wikipedia rules. This is an encyclopedia, not a reference guide for people to see how something is, for example what a bicycle path is like. But I am not completely sure, ask either Essjay or Redwolf24, they should be able to help you better than I can. I wish I could help more but I'm not completely sure, and I wouldn't want to tell you something wrong, so you better check with them. Quentin Pierce 06:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on my talk page. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cycopath

Someone nominated Culver City Median bicycle path for speedy deletion then I decided to take pity on it. You will find it at User:Tom guyette/sandox (that was meant to be sandbox but the tyop don't matter). I suggest you work on it there until it has at least one non-stubby section. -- RHaworth 04:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note regarding the Culver City Median bike path. The trick here is that I'm trying to get people who know more than me to help flesh out the content indexed by the Los Angeles bike paths article, and I'm cleaning up and wikifying the path pages as people contribute. It's been like juggling cats, between the speedy deletions and the rough quality of the content people are contributing.

I'm stubbing out all path articles with a sections template, filling in with what what little I know (sometimes nothing), expecting experts will populate the sections at some later point. With a sections structure, people are more likely to contribute useful information. Without a sections structure, we get meandering diatribes (I've seen them, they're not pretty). Is there a sanctioned way to rope something off as "structured and waiting for an expert to populate?" I was under the impression that's what article stubs were for.

Obviously nobody else will contribute to articles in my sandbox, so I don't think that method is useful in cases where I don't know anything other than the name of the bike path. If the recommended strategy in that case is to leave articles uncreated and then apply the sections format when someone creates them, how will I know when a new page has been created that needs to be edited? At least with stub articles, I can put a Watch on them and massage it into shape when someone fills it in. With no placeholder stub to Watch, I'd have to check every path in the list every day, which just isn't sustainable in the long run.

Please advise. Tom guyette 06:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be in the (Main) namespace asap. Flesh it out a bit more. Above all provide links to a map sources page using {{coor d}} or one of the related templates. Don't scream sect-stub so much.

Here's a very useful trick: if you move the article (not copy and paste it) into the (Main) namespace, it will not show up on the New Articles report so it will escape the attention of one group of Wiki patrollers.

Interesting inconsistency: are they bicycle paths, bike paths or bikeways? You can put a title that does not exist in your watch list - OK providing the new article is on the right title! Give me an example of a meandering diatribe - I wonder if you are being too fussy.

Best of luck. -- RHaworth 06:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to bicycle paths, bike paths, and bikeways, other terms in use include: rail trails, cycleways (evidently a more common term in the United Kingdom), segregated cycle facilities (another UK term), multi-use trail (to emphasize the presence of other users such as pedestrians, inline skaters, etc.), and shared-use trail. Trail and path seem to be interchangeable, generating more variations. The categorization in Wikipedia of these trails, such as it is (and it doesn't seem to be much, yet) reflects this overlapping, confusing terminology. There are also bicycle lanes along roads, as well as paths/trails that switch back and forth from being totally separate from roadways to being separate lanes along roadways to merging completely into them. The latter may result from retrofitting bicycle facility projects onto a pre-existing road network when off-road lands are already occupied and unavailable. In any case, I'm following the discussion here to avoid similar speedy deletions of bike/bicycle/cycle/path/trail/way articles I'm working on. My first attempt did not get speedily deleted, so maybe I slipped under the radar. -- Teratornis 03:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hermosa Valley Green Belt path

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Hermosa Valley Green Belt path, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.

Sometime in the future I will probably PROD many of the other very undeveloped LA-area bike path articles. My suggestion is that you should create one article on Los Angeles-area bike paths, instead of numerous skimpy articles on each bike path. Blank Verse 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Watts Towers Crescent Greenway

A tag has been placed on Watts Towers Crescent Greenway, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Sr13 (T|C) 06:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Arroyo Seco bicycle path

I have nominated Arroyo Seco bicycle path, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arroyo Seco bicycle path. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]