User talk:Geo Swan/Unwin Avenue

Another contributor excised some material, moved around the images, and made some disruptive and totally unnecessary changes to the article, with the edit summary "Heading... rmv. out of context info - Merge it with Toronto’s International Marine Passenger Terminal, hum ?" Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

murder of Leanne Freeman

The edit summary concerns me as it suggests the other contributor didn't pay enough attention, prior to the edit. A mortally wounded woman was found on Unwin Avenue a few years ago. It received extensive coverage for a few days, as her identity wasn't originally established. She turned out to be a young and beautiful part-time sex trade worker, who had only recently traveled to Toronto. The murder may make readers previously unfamiliar with Unwin Avenue wonder why the name is familiar. Readers may remember the murder, and want to be reminded of the woman's name.

As per the suggestions in the WP:COATRACK essay the article shouldn't start to be about the murdered woman. Further details about her, like her age, her work in the sex trade, her recent arrival in Toronto, would all belong elsewhere, possibly in an article on the sex trade in Toronto if there wasn't enough to make her notable for her to merit an article of her own. But I believe the amount of material I placed was appropriate.

The other contributor's suggestion that the material about her be moved to the article on Toronto’s International Marine Passenger Terminal leaves me scratching my head. She wasn't found at the terminal, which is deserted except when an international cruise ship moors there, a couple of times a year, and is on a campus protected by a team of security guards 24x7. As I wrote above this suggestion makes me wonder how closely the other contributor read the article prior making their edit. Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

disruptively eroding the utility of diffs

The other contributor seems to be one of the limited number of editors who routinely makes edits that strongly erode the utility of the WMF software's history mechanism.

The history mechanism will show us "diffs" -- displays that highlight how two different versions of an article vary. Lines that have changed are highlighted in color. Lines that haven't changed aren't shown at all, unless they are next to a line that changed.

Some contributors when making a trivial change to an article will also amalgamate lines that were previously separate, when there is no reason for doing so. The result is highly disruptive, as it makes large parts of the article light up like a christmas tree, when a diff is requested. Sometimes it lights up every single line of the article.

I urge the other contributor to never make this kind of disruptive edit again. Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

restorartion

I am going to restore the article to the state prior to the edit in question, on the grounds that leaving it alone except undoing the disruptive erosion of the utility of diffs would be too much work. I will (temporarily) excise the sentence on Ms Freeman. I call upon the other contributor to explain more fully why they think that material should be excised. If no explanation is offered in a reasonalbe period of time I will restore it too. Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Unwin

1. "In 1988 Don Peuramaki published a natural history of the roadway."

   No, he published a natural history of the area. This in of itself is not notable, but perhaps the history contains some factual details that ARE worth mentioning.

2. "According to The Canadian Entomologist Cherry Street, between Unwin Avenue and the Keating Channel was the first recorded site of termite infestation in Ontario.[7][8]"

   What does this have to do with Unwin? Both sources clearly indicate it is Cherry Street.

3. "An article in the Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering described the environmental effects of runoff from the snow dump."

   The preceding sentence to this one is somewhat noteworthy, but this goes off on a tangent. Again, what does the examination of the environmental effects of a snow dumping facility which happens to be on Unwin have to do with the street?

4. "The nearby Leslie Street spit is an important habitat and stopover site for migrating birds. A report on Tommy Thompson Park's bird sanctuarirs [sic] recommended Unwin Avenue as one of the possible locations for an interpretive center, explaining the importance of the spit to the public.[10]"

   WP:PUFFERY overload. This is way too much nonsense for what should simply read "Unwin was recommended as the location for a future information centre for the Leslie Street Spit.[10]" or similar.

5. "Shawn Micallef's Stroll: Psychogeographic Walking Tours of Toronto tells sightseers how to recognize the site of the horrific crashes of David Cronenberg's Crash.[2]"

   So? What does this have to do with Unwin?

6. "Early on the morning of November 29, 2011, a passing motorist discovered mortally wounded Leanne Freeman, on Unwin Avenue, Toronto's 42nd murder victim of 2011.[13][14][15] On January 8, 2012, an engraved 360 kilograms (790 lb) granite stone was placed at 450 Unwin Avenue, near where her body had been found.[16][17]"

   Possibly noteworthy, but straining on WP:NOTNEWS.

7. Overall, there is a lot of completely irrelevant information written in a very indirect and passive voice that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of numbering your points, to aid responding. Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

1. The title of the document is "Unwin Avenue: Cherry Beach to Leslie Street : a natural history of the area in the 1980s". I am trying to understand your concern here. Are you disputing that a document that begins with "Unwin Avenue" is about Unwin Avenue.

   I understand you have done extensive reading on roadways in this region, and it is possible that even bona fide experts in real life might acknowledge your expertise. But as a wikipedia volunteer you are not an expert. If you have a history of published documents on this topic it is under your real identity, not your wiki identity. So, it doesn't count. Don Peuramaki on the other hand is a published author. So his opinion trumps yours.

2. The article on the first infestation of termites in Ontario is delineating a region bounded by Keating, Cherry Street and Unwin Avenue. If they were able to be more specific they would have been.
3. You seem to be asking how an article about the effect of runoff from this facility on Unwin Avenue has to do with Unwin Avenue. If so I think you question contains its own answer. If you meant something else you will have to try to rephrase your question.
4. I disagree. You and I live in Toronto, and are familiar with the spit. Most readers won't be, so you shouldn't begrudge them a dozen words of context.
5. Cronenberg staged fake crash sites for his film. According to Micallef, he did so on Unwin Avenue. If Micallef was merely a fanboy, his comments would not be worth referencing. But he published a book, that I referenced. Even if, for the sake of argument, Micallef was a fanboy, having managed to convince a publishing company, and its editors, to allow this into his book makes it an WP:RS, and worth inclusion.
6. I have addressed the two sentences related to the murder of Leanne Freeman, and the monument erected to mark the site where her body was discovered several times already. The monument doesn't merit an individual article. Neither do I think the murder of Ms Freeman merit an individual article, unless more wrinkles emerge. But I thought the monument merited coverage, and I offered this limited coverage.
7. No offense, repeating comments I offered in the {{afd}}, it seems to me that in your characterization of that information is "completely irrelevant", or "trivial", or "indiscriminate", you are lapsing from WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

• I suggest we revisit these concerns once the {{afd}} is over. Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Yes, I am. Can you provide proof otherwise? I'm not claiming I'm a reliable source, I'm claiming that you aren't offering a relevant reliable source, and that you haven't bothered to read it. The fact that a Toronto naturist published a two page offering on a street in Toronto is not noteworthy, it is trivial. Again, it may contain important facts and figures to which it can be cited.
2. No, a building on Cherry street according to the source. Not relevant to Unwin Avenue. This is as rich as Oakshade trying to insert information into Birchmount Road about the residents in the nearby neighbourhood complaining and getting trains to stop tooting their horns; not relevant!
3. You are correct in the first part. This article is about Unwin, not a compendium of facts about the facilities along Unwin.
4. It's wordy. Use technical and concise language on an encyclopedia
5. The fact it was used as a filmset for (insert film) is actually a very interesting piece of information... I would never have gather this from the way it is written though. The fact that a book describes this fact this is not itself a fact worth mentioning.
6. Again, overly-wordy for a simple conveyance of information.
7. No, I pointed to one of our official policies. You, in turn, have pointed me towards "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions", an essay on your opinion of a subject, not on the content of an article.

--ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Were you planning to respond or should I prune away? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• By "prune away" did you mean edit the article to remove passages that you said triggered concerns for you?

  Since you nominated this article for deletion, and it is still before {{afd}} let me ask you, in turn, whether you aren't concerned how such edits would appear?

  Nominators editing articles while they are still before {{afd}} is very rare. I have known a handful of contributors who used to regularly employ this technique, who all ended up being permanently blocked -- for other actions they made.

  These individuals all seemed to put their egos on the line, when they made a nomination. Their egos prevented them from recognizing when the concerns they named in the {{afd}} were being addressed or had been successfully addressed. They stooped to disruptive edit warring of the good faith attempts of individuals who were trying to address weaknesses in the articles in order to keep the articles weak enough that the {{afd}} woulc close as "delete", when it looked like it would close as "keep", if they had kept their hands off. Some of these nominators would claim their edits introduced "improvements". But no one should nominate for deletion if they think it can be improved. Nominations should only be made when there is some policy based reason why the article is hopelessly irredeemable.

  If I were your best friend I would give you the same advice -- don't edit articles before {{afd}} if you have gone on record that they merit deletion, or you risk giving the appearance of disruptively damaging an article merely so the {{afd}} will be concluded as "delete".

  Even if, for the sake of argument, it seems everyone but those working to address the concerns listed in the {{afd}} thought a "delete" was going to be inevitable, I still think it is a mistake for those in the delete opinion to to start editing the article. The projects' overall store of goodwill won't be eroded. Those who favor keep won't have any reason to think dark thoughts. They won't think, "if only the nominator wasn't disrupting my efforts I could have fixed the article and it would have been kept!"

  If an article you nominated , or you voiced a delete, is closed as "keep" or "no consensus", and you think you can suggest genuine improvements, by all means engage in policy compliant editing of it again. Geo Swan (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Intimidating me with other examples will not stop me from seeing through the sheath of falsehood. You are cramming as much as you can find in to this so that it appears to the casual onlooker to more than pass our notability guidelines, and I'm going to question it if it's nonsense. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

problematic editing

This article has been the subject of considerable editing, during {{afd}}, by contributors who have gone on record as wanting to delete the article, I suggest that editing is a problem.

• One of the most recent was this edit -- with the edit summary "Environmental concerns: move to Cherry Beach". That edit apparently moved coverage of the competition class soccer pitches to Cherry Beach. The pitches official name does include "Cherry Beach", not "Unwin Avenue", but the entrance to the Parking lot is from Unwin Avenue, the fence bounding the north side of the property is about 5 meters south of Unwin Avenue while the property is at least 50 meters north of Cherry Beach. There is vehicle access to the west side of Cherry Beach, but the pitch is near the east side of the beach. So this edit is, IMO, inappropriate. I will revert it.
• In this edit the individual who first nominated this article for deletion made editorial changes that I believe are only appropriate if they believed the article should be kept. So, I willl revert it. Geo Swan (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• The environmental concerns and soccer pitches have no relevance to Unwin Avenue, but they do to Cherry Beach, which encompasses more than just the beach itself. The fact that these places exist along Unwin warrants at best a brief mention in a Route description; environmental concerns have no place in this article.
• As you have been told repeatedly, there is absolutely nothing that forbids the nominator or those who vote delete from editing the article. This is not a reason to revert an edit, especially when that edit cleans up inappropriate overcitation.

- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• You assert, with no reference to wikipedia policy, guidelines or established conventions, that "The environmental concerns and soccer pitches have no relevance to Unwin Avenue, but they do to Cherry Beach, which encompasses more than just the beach itself." So, why do you suggest nearby facilities are relevant to Cherry Beach, if they aren't relevant to Unwin Avenue?

  You assert, again without any reference to, well anything, that "environmental concerns have no place in this article." So, does this apply just to environmental concerns centered around Unwin Avenue, or are you going to assert that environmental concerns centered around every roadway aren't relevant to those roadways?

• As nominator, aren't you on record that the article is irredeemable? Why, in the name of goodness, would you nominate an article for deletion, and then argue your edits to it are "clean up"? Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• I shouldn't need policy to point out that you are compiling a bunch of loose details in an attempt to create an article; its just common sense when you have written essays and reports how English articles should develop or flow. You've created an annotative bibliography here for the most part. The sports fields are part of Cherry Beach.[1] The environmental concerns are related to the surrounding land, not the road. If you want to see how environmental concerns would be related to a road instead of the surrounding neighbourhood, check out Red Hill Valley Parkway, an expressway in Hamilton that was built through a forested ravine.
• Because you're engaging in WP:PUFFERY, shoehorning in trivial mentions or sources which you haven't read more than the title of, in an attempt to get keep votes. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)