User talk:Martinvl/TOTSO

Discussion on Restoration

This page has been deleted, but I believe that the criteria for its deletion were ill-founded. I believe that the article should be re-instated, but as the deletion administrator is no longer active in Wikipedia, so I am using this route to get the re-instatement going.

The fundamental argument used by the deletion administrator shows that he misunderstood the nature of the term (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOTSO). His argument included the crucial sentence: Several of the junctions listed as TOTSOs are what are actually called, in highway engineering, free-flow interchanges. While this might be true, it misses the point of what a TOTSO is. A TOTSO is a name that was coined to describe a situation that is found, for example, at Junction 18 of the M60 motorway. From the air, the interchange might look like any junction where two motorways cross at right angles - indeed it was built like that. However, roads have since been renumbered and the M60 follows the western and southern arms of the motorway, making a right-angled turn.

The one man whose idea this is is [sic] one Chris Marshall, who runs the WWW site cited as the first source. There's no evidence that anyone else apart from him has documented this idea. Yes this is true, but until the industry itself documents this concept, Marshall's term is the best that we have.

There's no evidence that it's even used as an alternative name for a free-flow interchange. This statement is proof that the deletion administrator did not understand what he was researching.

The removal of this article has created about eight red tags. In my view, it is bad practice to remove an article without tidying up any red tags that might appear as a result. If it is a matter of restoring the article or sorting out the red tags, my view is that the article should be restored in order to resolve the red tags, but that the restored/rewritten article should highlight some of the points made by the deletions administrator.

Please do not edit the main article until this issue has been resolved.

Julian is definitely active in the project, so you are mistaken in that regard. The AfD ended in a unanimous Delete, with very valid reasoning. Backlinks can easily be removed. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is only a dictionary definition in its current state.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 16:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The one man whose idea this is is [sic] one Chris Marshall, who runs the WWW site cited as the first source. There's no evidence that anyone else apart from him has documented this idea. Yes this is true, but until the industry itself documents this concept, Marshall's term is the best that we have. " -- Until the industry documents the concept and/or term, it's not notable and does not belong on Wikipedia. Ferrantino (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton announced he was retiring (or taking a wikibreak if you prefer) yesterday, so he was right about that part. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's news to me...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 12:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]