Talk:Great Highway

Stop the takeover

Whoever coming over to make these one sided edits. Stop it at once. It very toxic. Centralist2021 (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted on Centralist2021's talk page, this comment is both unduly combative as well as lacking any substance (like whatsoever), so they are expected to do better from this point on. El_C 03:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor interested in this article is welcome to make constructive proposals but disruption and edit warring will not be permitted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A even compromise for roadway article Great Highway

The "even compromise" article plan were both sides of content would be trimmed to the lowest until a solid development. This can take month or years to see the solid result actually happening. All mentions of stats, unofficial nicknames "great walkway", lawmakers, mayor is no longer needed. All a reader need to know is the Great Highway opened to traffic right now or not open except for walking and biking . Simple fair compromise. Centralist2021 (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining NPOV/preventing edit warring

There are no citations provided for the assertion that there are “community concerns” or that reopening the roadway to cars is a “balanced compromise”. This is biased language (a classic example of WP:WEASEL) and my edit simply stating that the roadway has been partially reopened in spite of protests against it is neutral and accurate. It should not have been reverted. Furthermore, the sentence "The plan will also focus away to expand or improve Muni service on western side of San Francisco" is both grammatically incoherent and completely inaccurate (there is no such plan as of yet). Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 12:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted part of a commit that inserts the claim "75% of Richmond district residents who actually use the Great Highway to transit across the city supported keeping the Great Highway open to cars" since I can't find it in the cited source. This edit was made by Disconnectcommunity (account temporarily blocked) but substantially similar edits were made on 7 Dec 2021 by Cyssf and on 18 & 19 October by 24.5.148.235. --Drnugent (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That "claim" of 75% of Richmond district residents comes directly from the D4 mobility study that has been used to justify the closure but they do not fully describe the details of the survey. It should be maintained. You have to look at the presenting materials from the D4 mobility forums held by the SFMTA. ([:cyssf|cyssf]]
"comes directly" is not correct. As Drnugent says, that statistic doesn't appear in the cited source. Find a better source or stop adding it. Jef (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining unbias page

We are not having pro closure spill into roadway Wikipedia page. Details about reopen closer to source and there no reason repeat the survey results.Centralist2021 (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly is 'we'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Enquiring minds want to know. Also, Centralist2021, once again, your comment here is too terse to be useful (i.e. it isn't substantive, still). El_C 16:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A fair or balanced compromise plan was made to open up the road during weekdays. The edit for "reopening details" are accurate. Based off the original source https://sfmayor.org/article/city-reveals-next-phase-great-highway-start-august-16 This is just to get it started. The Great Highway (roadway) reopened to car traffic was very recent so expect some more sources popping up to help polish it out. I am up for a article compromise and absolutely not up for "no compromise " Centralist2021 (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Centralist2021. Are you also up for answering mine and AndyTheGrump's query? El_C 21:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I not here to side with "closed great highway" team or "open great highway" team. The reopening details was part of recent status of this roadway. Centralist2021 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, that's a no, then. Got it. El_C 21:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained in the comment "It can me or other people who coming in to help polish and focus on "reopening Great Highway" section of article". I move it here.

a Wikipedia article must report both, not pick sides. Centralist2021 (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not pick sides. The last link you provided above is a press release from the Mayor. I'm sure the Mayor thinks it is 'fair' and 'balanced'. Quite possibly other people do too. However, Wikipedia, per multiple policies established over many years, doesn't decide for itself what is 'fair' and 'balanced', if multiple reliable sources suggest that there is disagreement over the matter: which appears to be the case. The press release is dated August 5th. At least two articles published since then state that protests have continued. [1][2] There may be more sources. Or possibly more protests. Either way, Wikipedia needs to report what is actually happening, and not just what the Mayor wishes to be happening. And that would include the protests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That already under section of Great Highway closure to motorized traffic since that section mostly about closure. It also talks about survey results. On wikipedia is not WP:Battleground by the way. Centralist2021 (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. I give up. Since Centralist2021 is either incapable of communicating in comprehensible English at the level required to participate in this discussion, or is being intentionally obtuse, I can see no point in trying to discuss this with them further. I suggest that others, actually capable of engaging in a rational discussion, attempt to do so on this talk page, after doing more research on what other sources are available. I'd look myself, but being UK based, aren't best placed to find such sources since US media websites routinely block UK traffic, and since someone with local knowledge will probably be more familiar with the relevant media. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Ain't no one got time for that. My own intention, when the article unlocks, is to keep on doing neutral edits as I have been doing all along, while removing biased trolling from the likes of Centralist. I am glad to see others supporting this position, in my experience of Wikipedia it's unusual. Jef (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"when the article unlocks, is to keep on doing neutral edits" This means refusal to compromise and no reason to be uncivil by shooting rounds that are looking for compromise on the article.Centralist2021 (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the section I created above. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 01:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that. And the edit you were presumably referring to. [3] I don't really consider that neutral either. Stating that the Highway was partially reopened "despite protests from city residents against it" leads to obvious questions for an uninvolved reader (or at least it should). Starting with the major one: do we know what proportion of 'city residents' are for and against the current limited reopening? And what would they like to see instead? You can see 'protests' against almost anything, but just how significant are they? This seems to be a complex ongoing debate, involving multiple perspectives, and the article ought to be able to reflect that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took the "despite protests" language directly from the news headlines I included as citations. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 02:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barring San Francisco Chronicle sources from this page

As discovered one of article writer "Heather Knight" were heavily in support closing the road on social media platforms. So these related to San Francisco Chronicle sources best not to be used for Great Highway Wikipedia article only and content shall be removed. Especially when talking about statistics. Thank you. Centralist2021 (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft, no. Jef (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That’s absurd. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 15:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'd like to ban the city's main newspaper as a source about news in the city it covers because one of its opinion columnists has...an opinion? That's utterly laughable. Abyssinia H (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Productive edits

Protecting the page from vandalistic users is good of course, but it's also important to keep improving it. Glad to see people joining in to fix and add things instead of just fighting. Writ Keeper, Abyssinia H, GoingBatty, thank you. Let's keep it going. Jef (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Dunes merged into Great Highway

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge given no consensus with stale discussion, and maintaining the status quo. Arguments for focussed on overlap, although opinions were split as to the target; arguments against focussed on the long history of the road, and that parts of it were still in use, with the part itself being independently notable; others noted the potential for change in status over the coming months, which suggests it may be too soon to make a merge decision. Klbrain (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing a merge to have Sunset Dunes to be merged into a sub section of Great Highway. Sunset Dunes became park under parts of Great Highway road. It does not need to have a separate page. Sourced under San Francisco Recreation and Park Department PropKSupporter (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for merging seems to be that Sunset Dunes is less notable than the Great Highway. But I think the question should only be, Is Sunset Dunes notable? Yes, I think it is notable. The park was approved by a public vote in a major city. Scenography (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. While the park has received coverage, much of it is in relation to the Great Highway; it's not an entirely new site, but a part of the Great Highway that has been closed to traffic. Golden Gate Park is a different situation because it has multiple individual features (such as the Conservatory of Flowers and San Francisco Botanical Garden) which are themselves notable and may have little overlap with the park's article. I don't think this is a similar situation—Sunset Dunes isn't a park built alongside a boulevard, but rather a part of an existing boulevard that was closed to traffic, so there is bound to be great amounts of overlap. The topic is already covered in detail in Great Highway#Pedestrianization of middle section, and per WP:NOPAGE it may be optimal to merge the pages so that all the information is kept in one place. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but rename article to Sunset Dunes. By my count, over half the "Great Highway" article by word count is about parts of the highway closing and converting to park use (625 words vs 535 words about other aspects of the highway). This will become even more lopsided after merging information only in the "Sunset Dunes" article. As for the highway itself, originally 3.5 miles, only two separate segments less than a mile long still exist as highway, one of which (the "Extension") is northbound only and slated to permanently close in the next few years. Nearly all, if not all, mention of the highway in reliable sources for the past 5 years has been about its closure and conversion to parkland, and this is likely to continue to be the case. The highway is now only notable as the history of the Sunset Dunes park, and the article should be framed that way and titled "Sunset Dunes." Graue (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, merge content from Great Highway to Sunset Dunes. That makes sense. It's a reverse merge. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge or Merge and rename to "Sunset Dunes". It is an official park, and according to a recent New York Times article it is the third most popular park in San Francisco. Whether a merge and rename should happen or not depends on how much the Great Highway remains a thing independent of Sunset Dunes. The Great Highway article indicates that all of it will be shut down by 2026 except the northernmost mile, at which point like most roads in San Francisco it might not be noteworthy enough for its own article. (Merging and renaming to "Sunset Dunes" is better than merging into Sunset Dunes, because it preserves the much longer edit history.) Several supports for the merge to "Great Highway" seem to be motivated by local politics; but that's not really relevant, since if it does get converted back into a road (which seems unlikely, based on what's reported in the New York Times article), the page(s) can easily be changed again. — the Man in Question (in question) 11:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split or Merge to Great Highway: Although I personally think that this controversy and the politics surrounding it is overblown, I admit that it's probably still notable enough considering that it received coverage from non-local outlets like the New York Times. It is in line with other city parks which have their own articles, though there's not much currently notable outside of the controversy and history of the preceding road.
I'm inclined to agree that referring to the park as "Great Highway" is incorrect, though I think redirecting "Sunset Dunes" to the appropriate subsection is acceptable. I am however against having the merged article be "Sunset Dunes" because most coverage over the past couple of years referred to "Great Highway" by virtue of it being the existing name ("Sunset Dunes" only having been chosen recently, after the contentious vote went through and the road itself was closed), and is likely to be more familiar in reference to the controversy. Also, the "Great Highway" name technically refers to more than the closed section and has a fair amount of history associated with it.
I do think that this article gets too much into blow-by-blow coverage of local politics, which I'm not sure would otherwise be notable per WP:NOTNEWS. Even Great Highway is heavily skewed towards recent events despite the road seeing other major changes in the past. In contrast, the pedestrianization of JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park only received a single paragraph in the park's article, despite also being a contentious and political issue to my knowledge.–Sonicwave talk 05:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Merge. There is still a portion of the Great Highway open to cars, which is separate from Sunset Dunes, the park. They are two different places now and should be split. Joshuatree415 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Merge: Sunset Dunes is its own thing now. The controversy over Sunset Dunes should be kept mostly on the Sunset Dunes page. There should be a brief summary of the controversy on this article with a hyperlink to that article for the full details. Mariwlqs (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge So far 7 Merges - 5 Against Merge - Few voted others. Sonicwave have made good point about this. This Sunset Dunes Wikipedia page has became too politically overblown as well too much car-free activism in the edits. Great Highway wiki is also becoming unacceptable politically overblown and activism fill. Someone need trim out edits on Great Highway page.. Just too much activism on both side and almost promoting car free agenda. I want the Great Highway restored back to Wikipedia page not activism or political campaign page. Political toxicity needs go each time someone talks about closing the road. Very unacceptable. Vote to merged Sunset Dunes into Great Highway Wikipedia page. Its pretty clear where sunset dunes watered down information should be. It be under Great Highway > History Parklover2424 (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide a quote for the car-free activism that you see in Sunset Dunes and Great Highway? BaduFerreira (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.