Talk:Atlantic Avenue (New York City)

	New York City portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Streets Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

This avenue covers as many miles, or more, in Queens and should not be parenthesized only for "Brooklyn".

done RustyCale 13:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Champs-Élysées of Brooklyn?

I thought Eastern Parkway was the Champs-Élysées of Brooklyn; I understand Grand Army Plaza was directly inspired by the Arc de Triomphe.--Pharos 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it now. See here.--Pharos 15:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Moses?

Can this article go into detail on why it's in Category:Robert Moses projects? --NE2 05:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't explain that, nor how this article falls under the proposed USRD scope. This street comes across as not much more than a long city street. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --NE2 07:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be added to the article then before tagging it, as it makes no mention of it... --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 08:15, 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. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This project covers all roads in the United States." --NE2 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much for your proposed scope revamp then... --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposed" is the operative word, and this would be under the scope anyway. --NE2 00:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, your quote above implies that you've thrown your own proposal into the trash. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way have I done that? That's quoted directly from WP:USRD, and is the scope that should be used when tagging articles. --NE2 01:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the only reason that's still the scope is that no one changed it. No one disagreed with your proposal. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:41, 10 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. --NE2 01:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I have to add it? I'm not the one declaring it within the scope of USRD. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a source that shows it's within USRD, and you didn't disagree. Removing the tag is just obstinacy. --NE2 02:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to remove the tag than it is to add a claim I didn't research. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:19, 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. --NE2 02:40, 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. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's forcing you to reply here; this will be my last reply to this thread. --NE2 02:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moses was behind the grade crossing elimination (The Power Broker, 8th printing, p. 508). --NE2 19:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]