Jump to content

Talk:San Ysidro Port of Entry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Faarroyo97. Peer reviewers: Faarroyo97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name change/expansion?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


San Ysidro Land Port of Entry Expansion Project → San Ysidro Port of Entry – Since there is no article called "San Ysidro Port of Entry" - shouldn't this article be moved to that name and expanded to include more general information about the facility itself? --MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I can't just boldly do it, because San Ysidro Port of Entry already exists as a redirect to this page. If others agree this move should be made, we will need an administrator to first delete the redirect page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would more or less agree. It would probably be better than having two articles. Also when the project is finished in can go under "history" or something of the like. So yes, it probably should. 08OceanBeachS.D. 19:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that San Ysidro Port of Entry should have its own page, but you may get a few who may challenge getting rid of this page.--JOJ Hutton 21:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we'll let it ride for a week or two before declaring "consensus". Personally I can't imagine why someone would want to keep this page as a freestanding page when there is no page for the main facility! But JoJ, are you suggesting that some people might prefer a two-pages option - so that this page about the expansion project would continue to exist as a standalone article, in addition to a (new) article about the facility itself? Or at least suggesting that some people might feel that way? Is there precedent for this kind of article, simply about an improvement project for an existing facility? I can't remember having seen one. --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Melanie, as a veterans of wikipedia, you and I both know how it gets when deletion/merge discussions come up. Its usually hit and miss on what will happen and who will want what. The page has merits, but as you said, its difficult to justify a page like this when ther is no parent page. I suggest keeping this and creating the other, but I'm not married to the idea. Creating San Ysidro Port of entry has been a silent goal of mine for a while, but just haven't had the time to put one together. I suggest geing Bold and just doing it, even if it is a simple stub at first. I've created many a stub that was added on to later.--JOJ Hutton 22:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would rather not create a new article (stub or expansion of the existing redirect page or whatever) for San Ysidro Port of Entry. I would rather transfer this article there, because that way the existing history of this article would stay with it. If the discussion here goes against the proposed move, then and only then we should talk about creating the other article IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW do you think I should put this in as a formal Move Request, to get a wider range of opinions? --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, RM is just technical. The page can be moved without it. You can give it a whirl if you feel that we should, but its not always necessary.--JOJ Hutton 00:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait and see what kind of additional participation/opinions we get here, then. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that I might say is in some cases the project construction and actual project are at times in the same article. As with the Mike O'Callaghan – Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge (Hoover Dam Bridge) and One World Trade Center. Although, since this article is about an expansion and the main Port of Entry has already been constructed, it may not be the same case. 08OceanBeachS.D. 02:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that the project construction and the actual project are virtually always in the same article! Can anyone find an example where an expansion project gets its own article, separate from the facility itself? If not, I still urge changing this article to San Ysidro Port of Entry and expanding it to be about the facility - including its expansion plan. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New thought: I notice that the actual name of the facility is the San Ysidro Land Port of Entry. If we move this article to that name, there would be no need for administrator help to first delete San Ysidro Port of Entry, which could become a redirect to the renamed article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I could support San Ysidro Land Port of Entry, on WP:COMMONNAME grounds (it only gets 8 hits on Google Books). I like the original idea of moving it to San Ysidro Port of Entry (which gets 577 hits). Another thought is San Ysidro border crossing, which gets 424 hits on Google Books.... Dohn joe (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of the title San Ysidro Port of Entry. This Cal State gov article also uses the name: GSA San Ysidro Fact Sheet. 08OceanBeachS.D. 01:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's three of us in favor of moving to a combined article at San Ysidro Port of Entry. Still not sure where JoJHutton stands, he seemed to be leaning toward a two-article preference. JoJ? --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay folks - it's been 10 days since the last comment. Time to implement the change? Dohn joe (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to go ahead do the move, but I'd like to wait until I have time to also do the expansion - to make the article about the entire facility, not just the proposed changes. If you have time to get to it before I do, Dohn Joe, feel free. As noted at the beginning of this section, we will need administrator help to do the move, since the proposed target article San Ysidro Port of Entry already exists as a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested name change

[edit]

The actual proper name for this facility is the San Ysidro Border Inspection Station. It is one of many facilities within what Customs and Border Inspection calls the San Diego Port of Entry. Other border crossings, the airport and seaport are also included. Part of the problem is that some federal, state and local governments are not consistent in the name they use.

I am considering writing articles on all the border crossings. Only a few (like this one) have articles already. For consistency's sake we should either limit the article (as this one does) to the US Border Inspection Station, or include information about the crossing in the other direction (in this case, Mexico's El Chaparrel Border Station) and title the article "The San Ysidro - El Chaparrel Border Crossing".

I am open to suggestions. Wbaron (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are normally titled with their common name and do not usually use the official or technical names.--JOJ Hutton 03:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Certainly most people call this (and other border crossings) a port of entry, even if it doesn't meet CBP's technical definition. For consistency, I will title articles about other crossings in a similar fashion.Wbaron (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for San YSidro Port of Entry. Current co-ordinates point to China


—203.123.81.30 (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for pointing out the error. Deor (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on San Ysidro Port of Entry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the busies crossing

[edit]

San Ysidro is long way behind Singapore-Johore crossing in terms of being the busiest land crossing in the world.Singapore-Johore crossing The US media yet again consider world to be synonymous with "the US". I guess similar to "World Series". The government source cited clearly states "busiest in the hemisphere" yet Huffington Post and Wikipedia editor decided to ignore that statement. --202.166.79.224 (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bias expressed in articles

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I noticed that there were a couple of places where bias seemed to be present. This was first noted through the way the text was written, but upon further investigation noticed it was the articles themselves. The first statement "Busiest land crossing in the world," comes from a biased article,source 2, which calls this traffic crippling to Tijuana and demands action. We may be able to fix this with simply citing a fact sheet such as GSA Fact Sheet website. Another potential source of bias comes from source 16. This source is a television program which interviews certain people to get a reaction from them and has limited number of subjects that they interview. This source has no statistically significant findings to back up its claims. Faarroyo97 (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

It seems that there might be three links that are not completely working. All of the following are currently not in service. Link to source 3, source 8, source 11. Faarroyo97 (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 phase 3 construction

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

The third phase of construction has already begun. Last September there was a closure of major highways in order to begin construction. I think we should really add this to the construction section, and update it. This is a great undertaking that should be noted and mentioned here in this page. The link to the full details can be found here. Faarroyo97 (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really the busiest land border crossing in the world

[edit]

The source which says that this is the busiest land crossing in the world is a Reuters article, which just mentions this in the lede without giving any prove of this. The article also quotes a US government website which states:

  • Busiest Land Port of Entry in Western Hemisphere
  • 70,000 northbound vehicles processed each day
  • 20,000 northbound pedestrians cross each day

As you can see, they don't even claim to be the busiest land crossing in the world. Now, I don't know which actually is the busiest land crossing, but I found one which is busier than San Ysidro. The Johor–Singapore Causeway seems to have more movements. It's a bit hard to get exact numbers, but those that I can find are significantly higher than those for San Ysidro:

  • 126,000 vehicles entering Singapore daily over the causeway alone and 296,000 pedestrians crossing over the causeway and a second crossing according to this news article from 2017. Only the vehicles alone are already more than San Ysidro, so the fact that we don't have pedestrian numbers for the causeway only, doesn't matter.

With this in mind, I am going to remove the statement that this is the busiest land crossing in the world from this article. Drat70 (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:San_Ysidro_Port_of_Entry&oldid=1206462876"