Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Car dooring"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Damien Linnane
(reply)
imported>LlywelynII
(note)
Line 21: Line 21:
  
 
:* [[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]] Discussion of the article on its own merits commented out below (several {{sc|pov}} issues) but I've since discovered it's simply a {{sc|[[wp:povfork]]}}—viz., the Australian English variant—of the "legal issues" section of the article at [[Door zone]]. "[[Dooring]]" (which is the correct {{sc|common}} {{sc|english}} name for the new article) already redirects to the existing one. The current article could be reworked into a ''different'' new article specific to the Australian law but should probably just have its content merged with [[Door zone]].&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 16:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 
:* [[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]] Discussion of the article on its own merits commented out below (several {{sc|pov}} issues) but I've since discovered it's simply a {{sc|[[wp:povfork]]}}—viz., the Australian English variant—of the "legal issues" section of the article at [[Door zone]]. "[[Dooring]]" (which is the correct {{sc|common}} {{sc|english}} name for the new article) already redirects to the existing one. The current article could be reworked into a ''different'' new article specific to the Australian law but should probably just have its content merged with [[Door zone]].&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 16:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 
  
 
<!-- Initial review
 
<!-- Initial review
Line 37: Line 36:
 
:** Most seriously, the article is ''strongly'' out of balance in placing its condemnation and admonitions entirely on automotive passengers. The point is nonsensical enough on its own: the bicycle is the speeding and dangerous vehicle in this case, which is obliged to remain out of the reach of the parked cars' doors. The bias is all the more pointed when the article uses sources entitled "Cyclists must steer clear of the threat of parked cars" and yet manages to avoid inclusion of any mention of cyclists' obligations to remain alert and out of danger. Automotive passengers have their obligations as well, but the current treatment is a no-go.<br>&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC) -->
 
:** Most seriously, the article is ''strongly'' out of balance in placing its condemnation and admonitions entirely on automotive passengers. The point is nonsensical enough on its own: the bicycle is the speeding and dangerous vehicle in this case, which is obliged to remain out of the reach of the parked cars' doors. The bias is all the more pointed when the article uses sources entitled "Cyclists must steer clear of the threat of parked cars" and yet manages to avoid inclusion of any mention of cyclists' obligations to remain alert and out of danger. Automotive passengers have their obligations as well, but the current treatment is a no-go.<br>&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC) -->
 
:::*[[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]] I searched for "Car dooring" on wikipedia and was surprised to get no hits whatsoever, I didn't even think to search for "dooring" on its own, so cheers for finding there is already an article covering this. I'm redirecting the article to Door zone, as I believe this is the best thing to do. Btw I read through your comments prior to discovering the fork. I'm not actually a cyclist (to be honest they tend to annoy me as i'm driving, but I acknowledge this largely isn't there fault). The problem is that as most streets were designed before cycling was popular, they do not allow enough room for a cyclist to ride outside of the door zone if there are cars on the road. As indicated by the sources, many of the dooring incidents involving taxi's are caused by the fact that taxis do not pull all the way over when stopping to let passengers out, and even when riding at a slow pace there is not enough time to slow down if you are close to the door when it opens. I probably should (and eventually would) have added a sentence on what cyclists should do to minimise the risks, but I don't think this was overly biased. Also the use of likely rather than may was just an oversight, and while I didn't have any real interest in the QPQ (I only did it because it is required), that doesn't mean I didn't do it properly. Anyway it doesn't matter now. Thanks for your review. [[User:Freikorp|Freikorp]] ([[User talk:Freikorp|talk]]) 22:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 
:::*[[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]] I searched for "Car dooring" on wikipedia and was surprised to get no hits whatsoever, I didn't even think to search for "dooring" on its own, so cheers for finding there is already an article covering this. I'm redirecting the article to Door zone, as I believe this is the best thing to do. Btw I read through your comments prior to discovering the fork. I'm not actually a cyclist (to be honest they tend to annoy me as i'm driving, but I acknowledge this largely isn't there fault). The problem is that as most streets were designed before cycling was popular, they do not allow enough room for a cyclist to ride outside of the door zone if there are cars on the road. As indicated by the sources, many of the dooring incidents involving taxi's are caused by the fact that taxis do not pull all the way over when stopping to let passengers out, and even when riding at a slow pace there is not enough time to slow down if you are close to the door when it opens. I probably should (and eventually would) have added a sentence on what cyclists should do to minimise the risks, but I don't think this was overly biased. Also the use of likely rather than may was just an oversight, and while I didn't have any real interest in the QPQ (I only did it because it is required), that doesn't mean I didn't do it properly. Anyway it doesn't matter now. Thanks for your review. [[User:Freikorp|Freikorp]] ([[User talk:Freikorp|talk]]) 22:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 +
::::* Good on you for the article fix and you are quite right that cyclists are between Scylly and Charby on many streets. It needed more balance, not removal of either group's need for consideration. Thanks for the work creating it and porting it: the Australian stuff is a useful corrective to the over-American emphasis on the existing page.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 14:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 14:28, 30 March 2015

Car dooring

  • ... that three people were killed by car dooring in London between 2010 and 2012?

Created by Freikorp (talk). Self nominated at 12:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Discussion of the article on its own merits commented out below (several Template:Sc issues) but I've since discovered it's simply a Template:Sc—viz., the Australian English variant—of the "legal issues" section of the article at Door zone. "Dooring" (which is the correct Template:Sc Template:Sc name for the new article) already redirects to the existing one. The current article could be reworked into a different new article specific to the Australian law but should probably just have its content merged with Door zone. — LlywelynII 16:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg I searched for "Car dooring" on wikipedia and was surprised to get no hits whatsoever, I didn't even think to search for "dooring" on its own, so cheers for finding there is already an article covering this. I'm redirecting the article to Door zone, as I believe this is the best thing to do. Btw I read through your comments prior to discovering the fork. I'm not actually a cyclist (to be honest they tend to annoy me as i'm driving, but I acknowledge this largely isn't there fault). The problem is that as most streets were designed before cycling was popular, they do not allow enough room for a cyclist to ride outside of the door zone if there are cars on the road. As indicated by the sources, many of the dooring incidents involving taxi's are caused by the fact that taxis do not pull all the way over when stopping to let passengers out, and even when riding at a slow pace there is not enough time to slow down if you are close to the door when it opens. I probably should (and eventually would) have added a sentence on what cyclists should do to minimise the risks, but I don't think this was overly biased. Also the use of likely rather than may was just an oversight, and while I didn't have any real interest in the QPQ (I only did it because it is required), that doesn't mean I didn't do it properly. Anyway it doesn't matter now. Thanks for your review. Freikorp (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Good on you for the article fix and you are quite right that cyclists are between Scylly and Charby on many streets. It needed more balance, not removal of either group's need for consideration. Thanks for the work creating it and porting it: the Australian stuff is a useful corrective to the over-American emphasis on the existing page. — LlywelynII 14:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)