This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Streets, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
streets in the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. StreetsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. StreetsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. StreetsU.S. city street articles
From the NYC truck route map (
[1][2]) 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. --
NE207:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)reply
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. --
TMFLet's Go Mets -
Stats05:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)reply
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. --
NE201:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)reply
It's easier to accept others' research. Anyway, I'm not interested in this argument, since I'm actually doing something constructive. --
NE202:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)reply
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. --
TMFLet's Go Mets -
Stats02:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Streets, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
streets in the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. StreetsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. StreetsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. StreetsU.S. city street articles
From the NYC truck route map (
[1][2]) 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. --
NE207:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)reply
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. --
TMFLet's Go Mets -
Stats05:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)reply
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. --
NE201:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)reply
It's easier to accept others' research. Anyway, I'm not interested in this argument, since I'm actually doing something constructive. --
NE202:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)reply
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. --
TMFLet's Go Mets -
Stats02:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)reply