Talk:178th–179th Street Tunnels

Comment
NOTE: This talk page was originally at Talk:178th Street Tunnel. Also see the similar talk page at Talk:179th Street Tunnel. Jason McHuff (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Well, the articles were tagged with a merge proposal on November 15, two weeks as of my current writing, but no discussion has opened. I'm going to post this identical talk to the other talkpage, too.

The text on this article and the proposed merge article, 179th Street Tunnel is almost identical. The only real difference I can discern is a singular mention regarding the direction of traffic flow (eastbound on the 178th and westbound on the 179th).

Rather just than merging one into the other, and redir'ing, would there be a beneficial rename? Something like "The 178th and 179th Streets tunnels", altho that is a bit unwieldy. Yng varr  17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would go with the name 178th–179th Street tunnels. I suspect the article will be very rarely linked to; these tunnels' very existence is neither well known nor often discussed. Most of the current links to these pages are via the template Avenues of New York City. Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

High Rise
What are the four ginormous buildings directly above it called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.102.33 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation
When this article was created, the text was copy and pasted right of the Trans-Manhattan Expressway page from nycroads.com. This makes it a copyright violation, even if changes have been made to the text since then. The copyright violation therefore needs to be deleted from the database, and in order to do this while still maintaining GFDL compliance, you cannot simply remove the notice and edit the text, or even rewrite it completely. In order to write a new version without copyright-infringing material, you need to click the link on the copyvio template (or this one: Talk:178th-179th Street Tunnels/Temp) and write it there instead, so that the old article can be properly deleted, and the new one can be moved in its place. – Kacie Jane (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)