Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 17
AWB to eliminate uses of {{Jct}}
Would someone with AWB care to look at the following articles and remove each instance of {{Jct}}?
- Too many expensive parser function calls
- List of auxiliary Interstate Highways
- State highways in New Jersey (This list is getting reworked, but it's taking some time)
- Unnecessary repetition
List of state highway spurs in Texas(Route marker can and should instead be explained in a paragraph)
- Images are distracting
The goal of this is to remove these pages from Category:Jct template transclusions with missing shields. —Fredddie™ 18:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'd do it, but 1)
it's not as easy as it seemsand 2) at least in the case of the NJ state highway list, it's like putting lipstick on a pig. For one, I don't get why the lengths are sourced to every individual SLD instead of just to the main SLD page, from where the individual SLDs can be accessed if someone wants to verify the length of a route. The 160 references on the page, in conjunction with the over 400 transclusions of jct, is why that page takes ages to load. – TMF 16:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)- Heh, forgot about {{roadlink}}. That should do the trick, but will they take just as long to render? I don't know, but I suppose the only way to find out is to change them over. – TMF 16:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I, too, forgot about {{Roadlink}}, which is ironic. I replaced {{Jct}} with {{Roadlink}} and put in {{Infobox state highway system}}. That should take care of that Texas list. –Fredddie™ 23:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River is now done as well. –Fredddie™ 00:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, forgot about {{roadlink}}. That should do the trick, but will they take just as long to render? I don't know, but I suppose the only way to find out is to change them over. – TMF 16:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deletion discussion
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of streets along the former U.S. Highway 99 in Washington. Dough4872 01:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace City Road. Dough4872 01:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 1E (North Dakota). Dough4872 02:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastshore Freeway --Rschen7754 20:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 1E (North Dakota). Dough4872 02:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Another: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memorial Drive (Atlanta) –Fredddie™ 06:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- And: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Boulevard (2nd nomination) Imzadi 1979 → 07:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
A favor
I'm asking for some input on an article I've spent the last week re-researching and rewriting in a sandbox. The article on the Capitol Loop has already been rated at A-Class through our ACR process. I'd like a few editors from the project to give the article a once over and review it on the article's talk page. If there are any copy editing suggestions that you have, just go ahead and make them to the article. Most of the History section was rewritten from the new research and expanded. In fact, none of the history relies on MDOT sources except the date the roadway was transferred to state control. (It's been a project from long ago to find the proper newspaper articles to re-cite this article to remove the press releases previously used to cite the history.) I've expanded the lead, updated the traffic counts and tweak the RD a bit as well. My goal is to take this article to FAC at some point, but I'd appreciate some feedback and copy editing first. Imzadi 1979 → 08:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I opened a Peer Review for the article tonight. Imzadi 1979 → 03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Merge proposal backlog
Category:U.S. Roads project articles to be merged is full of merge proposals, some of which have gone stale due to inactivity. Comments on the proposals (at the proposal location for simplicity) would be appreciated. – TMF 17:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- New discussion: Talk:Florida State Road 24#Merge proposal. Since a certain FL/NY editor is involved, it'll probably get contentious fairly fast based on past precedent. – TMF 16:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Bridge articles
Unless a highway designation is a redirect to a one of the bridge-related articles that were tagged in the project, I untagged them this evening. My reasoning is simple: there's already a project on Bridges that specializes in these subjects. The mere fact that a bridge carries cars doesn't make it fall under the scope of a project devoted to state highways. (The fact that a road carries cars doesn't make it a signed state or county highway either, and we don't tag those articles.) Some bridges though are the entirety of a state highway designation, and those I left alone. Basically, I was following what kind of infobox would appear on the article. If a bridge infobox is more appropriate, it was untagged. Imzadi 1979 → 05:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- My thinking has always been that we write about the road on the bridge, not about the bridge itself. –Fredddie™ 05:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, bridge articles should not be tagged USRD unless they form the entirety of a numbered route. Dough4872 15:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- The project scope is pretty clear on this matter. "Articles not maintained by this project, with some exceptions, include: ... Bridges, which are maintained by WP:Bridges. (Where the entire length of a numbered route exists solely on a bridge, WP:USRD will also maintain the article.)" I agreed with this take when it was first drafted, and I still agree with it. – TMF 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Here's my opinion; its rather contradictory. I think that all bridges should not be under USRD, no matter whether it is the complete route designation or not. I think the article should go under the route name, and bridge article for WP:Bridges. --PCB 16:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- So in cases where the SR is the bridge, the whole bridge, and nothing but the bridge, you advocate having two articles covering substantially the same topic? What is the utility in that? That's why the scope says that in cases where the SR and the bridge are one and the same, the article will be joint-maintained. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would behoove us to add in some <!-- comments on talk pages --> so we don't overzealously un-tag bridge articles which should be under USRD. –Fredddie™ 18:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I tried to double check the "What links here" list for each article before untagging it. When I pulled up the list, I clicked to "Hide links" which had the effect of isolating any redirects. If that list had a state highway designation redirect, I left it alone and moved on. If "the SR is the bridge, the whole bridge and nothing but the bridge," as Scott says, but didn't have a redirect in place, then I apologize for untagging it. Of course in that case, the redirect should be made tout suite at any rate. Imzadi 1979 → 19:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would behoove us to add in some <!-- comments on talk pages --> so we don't overzealously un-tag bridge articles which should be under USRD. –Fredddie™ 18:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- So in cases where the SR is the bridge, the whole bridge, and nothing but the bridge, you advocate having two articles covering substantially the same topic? What is the utility in that? That's why the scope says that in cases where the SR and the bridge are one and the same, the article will be joint-maintained. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Here's my opinion; its rather contradictory. I think that all bridges should not be under USRD, no matter whether it is the complete route designation or not. I think the article should go under the route name, and bridge article for WP:Bridges. --PCB 16:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- The project scope is pretty clear on this matter. "Articles not maintained by this project, with some exceptions, include: ... Bridges, which are maintained by WP:Bridges. (Where the entire length of a numbered route exists solely on a bridge, WP:USRD will also maintain the article.)" I agreed with this take when it was first drafted, and I still agree with it. – TMF 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, bridge articles should not be tagged USRD unless they form the entirety of a numbered route. Dough4872 15:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
By-county categories for state highways only
Category:State highways in Florida has 69 subcategories, all of which are titled "State Roads in <county> County, Florida". To me, this seems like far too narrow a scope for a category. Thoughts? – TMF 21:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Discussion at WP:MOSNUM
Regarding the distance columns in junction lists. Wikipedia_talk:Mosnum#Permitting_metric_distances_in_road_tables –Fredddie™ 21:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Discussion at wp:mosnum about metric units
Please see discussion at wp:mosnum about metric units. Lightmouse (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
{{USRD}} type for interchanges?
What does everybody think about there being a new type= for interchanges on {{USRD}}? –Fredddie™ 05:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think that could be a plausible idea, since interchanges are a special type of article for USRD. However, an interchange should also be tagged for what state it is in and what highway system it is along. Dough4872 00:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I support the idea. This is more like
|type=I
or|type=US
. We still add|state=
to those articles as appropriate to tag their location. It would be helpful to have them classified separately, maybe as a "pseudo" task force so we can work on assessment and standards for them a bit more. Imzadi 1979 → 01:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I support the idea. This is more like
Well, certainly the situation in the US is better than Malaysia. [1], and most of the ones that do exist should, unlike Malaysia. That said, I"m sure we could come up with a few other article types and map them out first before implementing any, as TMF suggested on IRC. Imzadi 1979 → 02:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I believe I've mentioned this before (in the form of presenting a task force). The thing is, I think there is a need to create standards for what sections need to go into an interchange article. TMF, the purpose of taking these would help us count how many exist and should exist. --PCB 16:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- There has to be enough to justify making a separate topic in the first place. I know I probably won't support it unless there's several dozen. – TMF 16:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just by looking for interchanges tagged under USRD, there are 24, including pictures. I'm sure digging deeper will find more. –Fredddie™ 16:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Let me state it this way, each state probably has a notable interchange. By that, I mean it's large or unusually designed. It has a name used by the public or the DOT. I know Milwaukee has two, the Marquette Interchange and the Zoo Interchange. Chicago has the Circle Interchange. There's a few Spaghetti Junctions out there. Michigan has "the Mixmaster" name applied to the I-96/I-275/I-696/M-5 interchange. There are currently 66 articles* that use [[tl|infobox road junction}} at the moment, with only 2 or 3 that aren't in the US, IIRC. Some of these are New Jersey's notable traffic circles, which I'd also include with the interchanges. Maybe the combined type should be
junction
instead. (*Malaysia currently has its own interchange template, which in all likelihood will get further revamped and merged into the generic IRJ. Before that happens though, there should be an AfD of probably 75% of the current articles because they fail WP:GNG. The transclusion count on IRJ may increase in the near future as a result. )- Looking at Category:Stub-Class California road transport articles (for some reason i was unable to wikilink it) there are quite a few California interchange articles; I know for a fact Arizona has 2 and Colorado 1. --PCB 17:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Let me state it this way, each state probably has a notable interchange. By that, I mean it's large or unusually designed. It has a name used by the public or the DOT. I know Milwaukee has two, the Marquette Interchange and the Zoo Interchange. Chicago has the Circle Interchange. There's a few Spaghetti Junctions out there. Michigan has "the Mixmaster" name applied to the I-96/I-275/I-696/M-5 interchange. There are currently 66 articles* that use [[tl|infobox road junction}} at the moment, with only 2 or 3 that aren't in the US, IIRC. Some of these are New Jersey's notable traffic circles, which I'd also include with the interchanges. Maybe the combined type should be
- Just by looking for interchanges tagged under USRD, there are 24, including pictures. I'm sure digging deeper will find more. –Fredddie™ 16:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- There has to be enough to justify making a separate topic in the first place. I know I probably won't support it unless there's several dozen. – TMF 16:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Deletion discussion: Farm to market Road 752
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farm to Market Road 752 has been opened. Comment there if you wish. Imzadi 1979 → 10:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Deletion discussion: County Road 1555 (Leon County, Florida)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 1555 (Leon County, Florida) – TMF 21:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Two more Florida county roads: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 1557 (Leon County, Florida) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 1559 (Leon County, Florida) – TMF 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Plus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 2196 (Leon County, Florida) Imzadi 1979 → 03:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Another deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 857 (Monongalia County, West Virginia). Dough4872 00:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memorial Drive (Atlanta) is still open. Imzadi 1979 → 12:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Mass Change of Reference URLS Redux
The Maryland State Highway Administration has once again made changes that have caused hundreds of deadlinks in Wikipedia references. SHA has made the filenames for all Highway Location Reference files shorter and more consistent, as well as streamlined the interface on their website for accessing individual county HLRs: [2].
The new URLs are of the form www.marylandroads.com/Location/YEAR_COUNTY.pdf YEAR is the four-digit year in the range 1999 to 2009. COUNTY is the name of the county in all-caps. For instance, the URL for the 2009 Caroline County HLR is www.marylandroads.com/Location/2009_CAROLINE.pdf Note the following special cases:
- Baltimore City only has an HLR for 2005. Its COUNTY value is BALTIMORECITY.
- The COUNTY value for Prince George's County is PRINCEGEORGES.
- The COUNTY value for St. Mary's County is SAINTMARYS.
- The COUNTY value for Queen Anne's County is QUEENANNES.
- The COUNTY value for Anne Arundel County is ARUNDEL, not ANNEARUNDEL.
The old URLs for 2000 through 2009 were of the form apps.roads.maryland.gov/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/YEAR_hlr_all/coCO.pdf YEAR is the four-digit year in the range 2000 to 2009. CO is the two-digit county code explained in the collapsed table below. For instance, the 2008 HLR for Anne Arundel County was apps.roads.maryland.gov/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/2008_hlr_all/co02.pdf
The old URLs for 1999 were of the form apps.roads.maryland.gov/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/Allint_99_hlr/coCO.pdf, where CO is the two-digit county code.
Maryland Two-Digit County Codes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Anyway, this is another project that would probably best be done via AWB, so I would much appreciate someone or a group proficient with that utility go through all of the Maryland state highway articles and update the reference URLs. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
MTF discussion
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force#Townships and jurisdictions on regional maps. – TMF 00:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
infobox major junctions
The wording in the former WP:IH regarding infobox junctions found here was not merged to the new standards. Is this deliberate? I've not been following all the recent discussions closely but I don't remember having this wording overturned. Also, now that a major cities box is gone, it is all the more a good reason to list junctions in major cities in the infobox. There might be a potential issue in Interstate 95 regarding this. --Polaron | Talk 14:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see it in WP:USRD/STDS. Also, we've eliminated major cities lists in both the box form and the infobox form because it's entirely subjective - this has been discussed extensively at WT:USRD and you can look in the archives for the discussion. --Rschen7754 17:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the wording relating to junction in or near the central cities of major metropolitan areas:
Only major junctions go into the Interstate routebox. These would be junctions with other Interstate Highways and/or junctions located in or near the central cities of major metropolitan areas with other important highways such as turnpikes and U.S. routes. Listing of multiple junctions in the same location should be avoided if possible. If any routebox has over 10 junctions, then some of the junctions need to be removed.
Compare an old version around the time the text above was inserted to WP:IH, and a recent version implying that only Interstate highways ending in 5 or 0 can be included. Which one is more helpful to the reader? --Polaron | Talk 23:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to defer this question to Scott5114, who wrote that part of STDS. (I think I was gone or something when this part of the guideline was written, because I don't remember anything about it.) But yes, I see the concern. --Rschen7754 04:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't a clue, I just merged what was there. Why not check through the history of the page and see if it was present in the first version of STDS, and if it was there then, see who removed it and when? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Similarly, some clueless editor is using a warped interpretation of the standards on I-99. See [3]. – TMF 15:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Possible sock-puppeteer at work
See [4] and [5]. Too bad this situation probably doesn't warrant a checkuser...yet. – TMF 13:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the user has struck I-97 as well. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
All indef'ed. Let me know if more pop up. --Rschen7754 05:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/P920398 --Rschen7754 05:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Utah assessment help
Please see WT:USRD/A. --Rschen7754 04:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
U.S. Route child route navboxes
See [6]. In short, a user replaced the actual child routes with the routes that replaced them, and I reverted for one simple reason: those routes aren't related to the parent route (here US 66), the routes they replaced were. It's been changed and reverted twice in the last week, so I figured I'd bring the issue here. – TMF 15:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Reviving AID?
OK, here's a little background. I was looking at the leaderboard tonight and I saw that Florida has almost moved out of the bottom 15. I was shocked, too. That got me thinking of starting up a part of the project for collaborating to get a state out of the bottom 10. Then I remembered AID.
WP:USRD/AID, if you recall, was the early incarnation of project collaboration which intended to get selected articles up to featured status. I think Ridge Route is the only article which AID worked on that became a FA; correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it was a direct result of AID.
Anyway, I'd like us, as a project, to select the state at the bottom of the leaderboard (currently Georgia) and spend 2-3 months destubbing and generally improving the whole lot of articles. The first week or so would be dedicated to finding reliable sources, to proposing ways to handle each state's special cases, to figuring out which articles needed the most attention first, and to setting goals to measure the success of the drive. After the first week, we can really get down to business improving articles.
The ultimate goal is to improve the encyclopedia, and I think this can work if we don't try to rush things. –Fredddie™ 03:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that would work. --Rschen7754 03:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- This sounds good. I wasn't too active with USRD at the time AID was around. I like the idea about gathering resources first, because that's the biggest impediment to working much outside of Michigan for me. Imzadi 1979 → 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe. Getting people to work outside of their home states is a pretty big endeavor though. Also, I've encountered some problems with quality when involving people not familiar with the area. Seems that people from the northeast tend to have problems with unincorporated areas, cities having incorporated area that is not called "downtown", and things like that. Contrariwise I inevitably fuck something up whenever I create a map for an unfamiliar state; apparently Michigan has way fewer incorporated places than I'm comfortable with, and New York has some county seats that aren't incorporated (shocking!). Meanwhile, townships vary in function from place to place—in some places (mainly the East) they're really important and have their own governments, sometimes even passing counties in importance, and in others (the West) they only exist for survey purposes.
- This sounds good. I wasn't too active with USRD at the time AID was around. I like the idea about gathering resources first, because that's the biggest impediment to working much outside of Michigan for me. Imzadi 1979 → 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if nothing else, this'll give the taskforce pages some use. Here's hoping that this works... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt it'll work, even if the format is revised. The only way an AID works is if there's a committed editor base that works on it, and historically there hasn't been. Every road-related AID that was developed - the USRD one, the NYSR one - both eventually went away for that reason. – TMF 16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I think we can start a drive to destub articles from a specific state. From my personal experience, I was able to do something along those lines for Mississippi. I had noticed that the state was near the bottom of the leaderboard and was able to find the length and historical sources from MDOT to expand a few of the state's articles. I really think we could do the same for other states, as long as we are able to find sources. Dough4872 16:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- You still need a set of editors that will be committed to the drive for a while. If there's enough, then go for it, but I'm not confident that there is. Myself, I'm not interested in any of these drives - I prefer to work in states where I've already done extensive research and have substantial experience with the state's layout, government structure, etc. And until my work in those states is "finished", I don't plan on doing work in other states. – TMF 16:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I think we can start a drive to destub articles from a specific state. From my personal experience, I was able to do something along those lines for Mississippi. I had noticed that the state was near the bottom of the leaderboard and was able to find the length and historical sources from MDOT to expand a few of the state's articles. I really think we could do the same for other states, as long as we are able to find sources. Dough4872 16:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt it'll work, even if the format is revised. The only way an AID works is if there's a committed editor base that works on it, and historically there hasn't been. Every road-related AID that was developed - the USRD one, the NYSR one - both eventually went away for that reason. – TMF 16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm thinking it's a great idea to start with identifying sources for different states' highway systems. Creating those source directories will benefit current and future editors, and the whole process should help supplement the stub-reduction drive as a whole. Imzadi 1979 → 03:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I also agree that a source directory of some sort would be a good idea; I know I've had a hard time finding sources for several of the states, particularly in the South (if anyone can find any history of West Virginia state routes, or lists of WV county roads in general, I would be very grateful). Even getting the DOT map and route log sources would be an accomplishment. Since I also tend to focus on certain states (Illinois and Wisconsin), I don't know how much I could contribute to a de-stubbing effort in another state, especially since my writing time is spread across four projects as it is; therefore, I'll leave it to the more dedicated editors to decide on that one. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Such a directory would be very helpful. One of my frustrations is dealing with Texas roads that cross into New Mexico. It's easy to get reasonably good documentation of Texas routes through their TxDOT highway designation files and through state archive maps, NMDOT only provides good information for current routes in its route logs with no historic context. The only Internet source I've been able to find is Steve Riner's Unofficial New Mexico Highways site, but that site only provides unreferenced material with only broad, sweeping histories and has a disclaimer that some of its information is based on inference, recollection, and includes uncertainty. There is no roads task force and no project page that would list any resources. The article List of highways in New Mexico has an external links section linking to the route logs and unofficial page already mentioned plus a dead link and a link to a spam site banned by its ISP. Only three New Mexico State Road articles rate above stub class. Sometimes search engine results is a bust, too. For New Mexico roads in suburban El Paso, search results for El Paso Times articles with summaries that offer promise of useful information lead to dead links because the newspaper changes the URL of the article when it puts them into archives or deletes them. Fortguy (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, we already have a page for the source directory at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Resources, though it's missing most of the states right now. We should probably focus on expanding that, since it already has some useful resources. Everything should probably be consolidated on one page though, to the extent it can be. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, it would help to centralize all the highway resources for every state on the USRD Resources page. Currently, it lists only resources for those states without a subproject, while the other states may have a list of resources on the subproject page. For editors willing to expand US road articles, it would be better for all the info to be in one easy place. Dough4872 03:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like the idea of filling out the Resources section of the USRD page. It does not seem an AID-type project is going to get off the ground now, but taking the time now to list resources would be helpful for getting such a project off the ground later. I also think we should link to the Resources sections of states with WikiProjects for completeness, instead of asking users to find the particular WikiProject. For instance, Maryland would have a header in the USRD Resources section with Main Page: WP:MDRD#Resources. The inclusion of only some of those states with task forces now suggests resources for other states are lacking, which could deter new editors from working on their state of preference. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, it would help to centralize all the highway resources for every state on the USRD Resources page. Currently, it lists only resources for those states without a subproject, while the other states may have a list of resources on the subproject page. For editors willing to expand US road articles, it would be better for all the info to be in one easy place. Dough4872 03:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, we already have a page for the source directory at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Resources, though it's missing most of the states right now. We should probably focus on expanding that, since it already has some useful resources. Everything should probably be consolidated on one page though, to the extent it can be. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
RJL converter program
I have written a program designed to convert hardcoded RJL table syntax into RJL template syntax! The first version is at http://www.rschen7754.com/programs.htm. The program is in the alpha stages but is being developed. --Rschen7754 19:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything we can do about this? I've tried to warn the user quite a few times, to no avail. --Rschen7754 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I could, I'd get out the ban hammer. The IP's been warned for unconstructive edits before, so I don't think a range block would be out of line.
Mile/km conversion on the bottom of junction lists
See Utah State Route 79. What is the purpose of this? There should be a discussion somewhere that decided to implement this... can someone link me over to that? CL (T · C) — 16:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is the result of a discussion at WT:RJL. The purpose was to find a way to accommodate the MOS requirements on measurement conversions. According to MOS:CONVERSIONS, when a system of measurement is innate to a topic, conversions are not required at each instance, so long as a note with the measurement conversion is provided. That new footer meets that requirement. {{legendRJL}} has a similar conversion line added to it as well in addition to the color key. Any junctions lists that don't have {{jctbtm}} need it added to produce the conversion footer. If the table uses background colors, then the color key template, {{legendRJL}}, needs to be added. Imzadi 1979 → 16:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well alright. I'm not sure I totally agree with it but what's done is done. CL (T · C) — 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone totally agrees with it other than the MOS hard-liners, but it's sure better than a footnote (which would horizontally bloat the mile column) or a second column devoted to kilometers. Unfortunately, keeping the status quo wasn't really an option. – TMF 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well alright. I'm not sure I totally agree with it but what's done is done. CL (T · C) — 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Assessment woes
[9]. --Rschen7754 17:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really understand why he cares whether some random Ohio route's assessed as a stub or not. But yes, that's clearly a stub by our assessment criteria. Maybe I'll remove the History subheader to help him see the light. After all, that's why we assess articles with only one of the big three as a stub - the lone section could easily be folded into the lead, which would clearly make it a stub. – TMF 17:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Open nomination reminders
The following items have open nominations:
- Capitol Loop at Featured Article Candidates
- Portal:U.S. Roads at Featured Portal Candidates
- Eisenhower speech, October 9, 1954 at Featured Sound Candidates
- U.S. Route 30 in Iowa at A-Class Review
M-15 centerline 1917 at Featured Picture Candidates
Please comment or review these items if you're interested. Imzadi 1979 → 00:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Merge discussion
Talk:Ohio State Route 814#Merge proposal – TMF 07:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
More: Talk:James River Freeway#Merge proposal, Talk:Mount Hood Highway#Merge proposal – TMF 17:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Another one: Talk:Interstate 55 in Missouri#Merging Rosa Parks Highway Dough4872 03:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
New AfD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York – Chicago Toll Road system. Imzadi 1979 → 20:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Should the U.S. Roads portal be linked to from PR highway articles?
User talk:Marine 69-71#Roads Portal Links --Rschen7754 20:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Tony, can you check out this message in my Talk. I am better at actual articles, and had been using whatever template was there already, and just expanded the articles or copied the See also portal part over to new road articles. Believe Quazaa may have added portal info also. Anyway, I will leave these decisions to you and the other admins. Can you answer this user yourself instead? I'll use whatever template you guys decide. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE: Uff,,, looks like someone from the US Roads project went in there and changed them ALL to point to US Roads...
I don't get it, what is the difference anyway? Will we get better treatment (what ever that might mean) with the US Roads project people than with the global Roads project people? Or, to start with, is there such thing as a "global roads project people" if we are talking about portals ??? Seems this is just a matter of pointing to one portal vs the other portal...why would anybody care? what diff does it make? and for that matter, why not just point to BOTH portals, the "global" roads portal and the US roads portal as well and live happily ever after? Again I don't understand half the technical/wiki-reasoning stuff behind this, but seems to me there must be a significant reason and difference if this user TwinsMetsFan bothered him/herself enough to run a script to change them all. Thanks mentor, Mercy11 (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response which I always look forward to with great anticipation. It's just that you understand the workings of wikipedia much better than me and so I prefer to defer to you when in doubt. To my credit (pat on my own back - haha) it appears my understanding this time was not that far off! As for that user, no, I never thought s/he might have any political agenda, and in fact my prior interactions with him/her have been uneventful. The other editor (Imzadi), however, I am not yet sure what his/her motives are, but I suspect s/he too is just trying to help also. An editor called Fredddie is VERY helpful and easy to work with, boy he's got a good head on his shoulders! Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I may add to this Discussion... as I understand it, PR does not receive any funding from the US for its Roads from the US Dept of Transportation (due to the drinking age still being 18?). If this is the Case (its why I only added Roads Portal and not the US Roads portal), I am inclined to say that all the edits by TMF should be undone. Thoughts?QuAzGaA 10:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, Puerto Rico receives hundreds of millions of DOT dollars for road construction and maintenance. It loses about 5% of that (I believe $10-15 million per year) for being the only state-level jurisdiction to "put its money where its mouth is" defending the "states' rights" that most other states pay lip-service to, by refusing to cave in to improper Congressional attempts to impinge on states' rights to determine the minimum drinking age. In Puerto Rico, the civil rights of young adults who can vote and serve in the Armed Forces are not up for sale to the highest bidder. We do limit legal blood alcohol levels in 18-20 year old drivers to 0.02% (which rises to 0.08% for drivers 21 and older), in recognition that inexperience requires greater focus on the road. Sorry, but I feel strongly about this issue, as you may have guessed! Pr4ever (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Highways Authority budget for road constructionthis fiscal year:
Mejoras Permanentes Fondo de Mejoras Públicas 0Fondos Federales 116,733Otros Ingresos 0Préstamos y Emisiones de Bonos 38,119Fondos Federales ARRA 63,055Subtotal, Mejoras Permanentes 217,907
Federal funds ($116,733,000 in regular appropriations and $63,055,000 in special ARRA funds) represent over 80% of the total investment of $218 million. Pr4ever (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
IF THE ARGUMENT IS HAD that the PR road articles should have the US Roads portal link using as the basis the argument of (i.e., "BECAUSE OF") Puerto Rico's receiving of federal funding for roads, then (for the benefit of complying with the NPOV policy) we must also allow for the argument that Puerto Rico sends more money into the U.S Treasury than it receives back via all US programs combined (including highway construction and maintenance funding)... My point is, both these arguments (plus all the others taht will inevitably follow) will fill hundreds of Talk pages and lead nowhere.
I proposed we stay away from political arguments while being sensitive to the underlying political views of all editors so we can move the work forward. Unfortunately the US Roads project people may not be as tuned to the political environment currently brewing in (and out of) Puerto Rico; so let's just say they innocently messed up.
I don't think anyone will get pumped up if we said the PR belongs to the world, but check out editors' reactions if we stated that PR belongs to the US (Note: I am not stating this is a fact or not a fact; I am simply stating it raises up the "guard" in editors)... This is why I propose the PR highway articles show (for those of you new to this: "as those articles always showed before"), ONLY the World Roads portal link. To include the US portal is likely to introduce an underlying political view that would be detrimental to moving forward with the project.
As for PR wikiproject's interaction with the US Roads group,,, that wouldn't be affected a bit: the PR road articles will continue to include the "This roads-related article is within the scope of the US Roads Wikipedia project" banner in the discussion page, and the articles would continue to be improved according to their well-documented standards.
If we were to arrive at a consensus on this, seems to me any decision, vote, preference, etc, should then be passed by the (very helpful) folks at the US Roads project to ensure we also get their views - if they have any further views to proffer - and from that point forward a final Resolution to the matter could be tendered by the PR Wikiproject group. Just my opinion on how this could be handled.
I vote the US Roads Portal NOT be included in the PR roads articles.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC) and I approve this message.
*For the first time ever, I find myself in disagreement with Mercy11 (just his vote, there are valid points above). Bottom line, I think that for the benefit of the articles, inclusion in the US Roads Portal will actually be more beneficial than controversial. It's just a portal link in the "See Also" section and IMO does not conotate any political overtones (even the portal image seems a little mundane..No offense to US Roads). Now as for the Funding argument, whether they offer, or we accept- we give, they take; I don't think the Roads care. And IMO, the articles about the roads should not either.
I Vote for Inclusion of both portals. Should this vote be moved to WPPR? (sorry Tony!) QuAzGaA 16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, since this is the proper forum for this type of discussion, I will comment here, and not there. They should be linked. Ideally all of the articles on highways in the US should be linked to Portal:U.S. Roads. Let me clarify that with one exception. If a USRD subproject creates their own portal, which is in turn linked to P:USRD, then that articles in the scope of that subproject should link to the other portal. Yes, there is a Portal:Roads that aims to cover roads globally. Their content is not updated regularly, and the last edits to that portal excised all US content except one photo. I think that's a pretty clear indication of the scope of that portal. P:USRD in the future will continue to update on a monthly basis, and it will accept any nominations of any selected content from any part of the United States, regardless if that is a state, a district, an Indian reservation or a territory. That's my $0.02. Imzadi 1979 → 20:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
All of this discussion about fricking portal links?! Really? Just delete the damn things if they're so contentious, it's not like it's a necessary thing to have! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- If Puerto Rican editors don't want to be associated with anything US-related, that's fine. Perhaps they can open up their own road project with map and shield task forces as well. (But really...I find this whole topic absurd beyond belief. This is all I have to say on the matter; anything more is a waste of bytes.) – TMF 01:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- No need to be sarcastic. This is not a "Puerto Rican" thing as you seem to indicate. We are all trying to figure out what is the best option and proper thing to do, simple as that. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't a clue who you're replying to, but if it's myself, then no, I'm not being sarcastic at all. This is a Puerto Rican thing as far as I'm concerned because it involves (I'm assuming) Puerto Rican editors and Puerto Rican articles. If the Puerto Rican editor base does not want to be associated with anything US-related - which is the impression I'm getting from what I'm seeing above - then I suggest they start up their own roads project independent of USRD. Since they would no longer be associated with USRD, they would then need to develop their own shield and map task forces. – TMF 20:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I did mean you, but now I see that I assumed incorrectly and I take it back. I see your point. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
YES, imo, the U.S. Roads portal should be linked to from PR highway articles. This is my vote. And this represents my new conviction that doing this will be beneficial to both projects. (When I figure out how to cross-out my earlier "NO" vote, I will do it).
Mercy11 (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Suffolk CRs merge
Beating a dead horse here, however, now that List of county routes in Suffolk County, New York (1–25) exists. I have gone around and finished proposing merges of County Route 9, County Route 10, County Route 11, County Route 13, County Route 14, County Route 16, County Route 17, County Route 19, and County Route 21's articles. The merging of these articles has been a long debate and I think using the Rockland County Scenario, we can put this long heated discussion to rest.Mitch32(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.) 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I still see the Suffolk CR 9 and 10 articles up, and I tagged those for merging quite a while ago. While some of the county roads that were tagged for merging I agree with, 16 and 21 are two that I don't agree with at all. I'm kind of on the fence about CR 19, though, and I still have work to do on the other lists. ----DanTD (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed with Mitch. The whole point of making RCS lists for county routes is to eliminate virtually all of the standalone articles. – TMF 23:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Mitchazenia and TMF. I don't see anything resembling notability on the articles DanTD would like to keep. CR 16 goes east-west if you don't feel like getting on I-495, CR 21 serves a golf course, and CR 19 was really difficult to find on a map. Merge all. –Fredddie™ 23:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- 16 has about 5 different streets to it and the article has detailed history that would crowd up the Rockland County-style list, and 21 serves more than just a golf course. 11 serves the Port Jefferson Branch of the Long Island Railroad, and was proposed to be replaced by the never-built North Shore Expressway. ----DanTD (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- The history of 16 isn't that detailed and its RD is full of filler. It could easily be pruned down (i.e. cleaned up) and merged in. – TMF 00:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- They're all full of filler. Who cares how many streets a route follows? Maybe I've traveled to the wrong states, but wherever I've gone, county roads are not major roads and certainly none of them are worthy of inclusion. –Fredddie™ 00:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, maybe you have traveled in the wrong states. I've mentioned this before, but county roads are different in downstate New York than they are in Utah or rural Florida. ----DanTD (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- You want a major county road worthy of inclusion as a full article? It needs something notable about it. Brockway Mountain Drive is a county road in Keweenaw County, Michigan that is quite notable as a tourist destination, with history that dates back to the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression. No other county road in Keweenaw County will get an article, but that one does. County Road 492 in Marquette County will also have an article when it comes out of my sandbox. (I'm waiting to find a realignment date for the history first, but the article is otherwise ready.) Why does that get it's own article? Dead Man's Curve along that road has a Michigan State Historical Marker as the site of the first highway centerline when that road was M-15 in 1917. Special histories or peculiarities lend notability to a roadway, mere existence does not. The only other county roads in Michigan that will get full articles are parts of the County-Designated Highway System, which is numbered by MDOT but maintained by the counties. Most won't get full articles, but several that are former major highway alignments will. Some of the rest might as part of a state-wide system, but only if B-Class articles can be created for them. The rest will stay merged into the RCS-style list, which predates the RCS concept by a year. Imzadi 1979 → 16:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Who's saying I'm going by mere existance? I've already mentioned that there are county road articles I won't bother with. I've tagged two others for mergers, and when I finish the other four lists, there are a few county road articles I'd like to see merged into them. Just not all of the articles. You mentioned special history giving article notability; Fine. I already pointed out those of Suffolk County Road 11, and Suffolk County Road 21 has runs through historic Yaphank, two County parks with pine trees from Quebec, the old RCA Transmission site, and other areas. Suffolk County Road 83 has a Vietnam Vets Memorail between two high hills that used to be overlooks near the former Bald Hill Ski Bowl. Suffolk County Road 104 used to by New York State Route 113. Would you dump that strictly because it's a county road today? Many of the others are four-lane divided highways and even undivided highways, which puts them above two-lane state highways. Some 20-odd years ago, there was a political candidate in Suffolk County who vowed to acquire all state highways, in order to make improvements on them that the NYSDOT wouldn't. If he had succeeded, would you reject articles on any of those roads? Speaking of New Deal-related roads, between Brooksville and Hill 'n Dale, Florida, there's a dinky little two-lane street called W.P.A. Road. I wouldn't put that one in, would you? Until you mentioned Marquette County Road 492, I considered this nothing more than an anti-county road hate fest. In spite of the two articles, I still have a suspicion there is. ----DanTD (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Those trees make the park notable, not the road. That transmission site itself is notable, not the road leading to it. The memorial itself could be notable, but that doesn't automatically make the access road notable. CR 104 can be merged into SR 113 then as part of the history section. There has to be something specific to the road that makes it notable, not the parks to buildings along it per se. If that WPA Road were famous for its creation by the WPA or notable for other reasons, then give it an article. Otherwise, mention it in the WPA article as being named for the WPA as part of that agency's legacy. As for state highways, they're usually notable. All of the minor ones that the MSHD designated in the 1930s as former alignments of other highways that spurred into a community have been merged into a list, Former Michigan spur routes. They will probably never exist as stand alone articles. In fact, when I get these last few MI highway articles up to B- or C-Class, I'm going to work on dismantling that list by merging them all elsewhere. The merger targets will probably be the original highways from which those routes all spurred. A few that were ferry-related might be instead merged into a separate list of Former Michigan highways that served ferries once M-168 and M-108 are decommissioned later this year. They just really aren't notable on their own. My rule is this: state highways are presumed notable until proven otherwise; county roads are presumed non-notable until proven notable. Imzadi 1979 → 13:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- If Cathedral Pines County Park, Prosser Pines County Park, and the RCA Transmitting area diminish notability for Suffolk CR 21, and the Vietnam Vets Memorial diminishes the notability of Suffolk CR 83, then Lake Superior takes away any notability of Brockway Mountain Drive. I prefer to use common sense when it comes to the notability of a road article, which is why I wouldn't bother with an article like County Route 43 (Suffolk County, New York) if it hadn't already been written, nor would I waste my time with some dead end dirt road in Sumter County, Florida that doesn't even have a route marker. In fact, I'd like to merge Suffolk CR 43 to the Suffolk County 26-50C list when I'm finished with it. When I'm done with the list for Suffolk CRs' 51–75, I'll gladly merge CRs 55, 63, 73, and maybe even 58 to that one. For the Suffolk CR list from 76-100, I'll gladly merge CR 100. I'm even going to merge Suffolk CR's 9 and 10 to the 1-25 list today after a few adjustments. A few of the others, I still think can stand up on their own, and shouldn't be trashed just because they're county roads. ----DanTD (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Those trees make the park notable, not the road. That transmission site itself is notable, not the road leading to it. The memorial itself could be notable, but that doesn't automatically make the access road notable. CR 104 can be merged into SR 113 then as part of the history section. There has to be something specific to the road that makes it notable, not the parks to buildings along it per se. If that WPA Road were famous for its creation by the WPA or notable for other reasons, then give it an article. Otherwise, mention it in the WPA article as being named for the WPA as part of that agency's legacy. As for state highways, they're usually notable. All of the minor ones that the MSHD designated in the 1930s as former alignments of other highways that spurred into a community have been merged into a list, Former Michigan spur routes. They will probably never exist as stand alone articles. In fact, when I get these last few MI highway articles up to B- or C-Class, I'm going to work on dismantling that list by merging them all elsewhere. The merger targets will probably be the original highways from which those routes all spurred. A few that were ferry-related might be instead merged into a separate list of Former Michigan highways that served ferries once M-168 and M-108 are decommissioned later this year. They just really aren't notable on their own. My rule is this: state highways are presumed notable until proven otherwise; county roads are presumed non-notable until proven notable. Imzadi 1979 → 13:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Who's saying I'm going by mere existance? I've already mentioned that there are county road articles I won't bother with. I've tagged two others for mergers, and when I finish the other four lists, there are a few county road articles I'd like to see merged into them. Just not all of the articles. You mentioned special history giving article notability; Fine. I already pointed out those of Suffolk County Road 11, and Suffolk County Road 21 has runs through historic Yaphank, two County parks with pine trees from Quebec, the old RCA Transmission site, and other areas. Suffolk County Road 83 has a Vietnam Vets Memorail between two high hills that used to be overlooks near the former Bald Hill Ski Bowl. Suffolk County Road 104 used to by New York State Route 113. Would you dump that strictly because it's a county road today? Many of the others are four-lane divided highways and even undivided highways, which puts them above two-lane state highways. Some 20-odd years ago, there was a political candidate in Suffolk County who vowed to acquire all state highways, in order to make improvements on them that the NYSDOT wouldn't. If he had succeeded, would you reject articles on any of those roads? Speaking of New Deal-related roads, between Brooksville and Hill 'n Dale, Florida, there's a dinky little two-lane street called W.P.A. Road. I wouldn't put that one in, would you? Until you mentioned Marquette County Road 492, I considered this nothing more than an anti-county road hate fest. In spite of the two articles, I still have a suspicion there is. ----DanTD (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- You want a major county road worthy of inclusion as a full article? It needs something notable about it. Brockway Mountain Drive is a county road in Keweenaw County, Michigan that is quite notable as a tourist destination, with history that dates back to the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression. No other county road in Keweenaw County will get an article, but that one does. County Road 492 in Marquette County will also have an article when it comes out of my sandbox. (I'm waiting to find a realignment date for the history first, but the article is otherwise ready.) Why does that get it's own article? Dead Man's Curve along that road has a Michigan State Historical Marker as the site of the first highway centerline when that road was M-15 in 1917. Special histories or peculiarities lend notability to a roadway, mere existence does not. The only other county roads in Michigan that will get full articles are parts of the County-Designated Highway System, which is numbered by MDOT but maintained by the counties. Most won't get full articles, but several that are former major highway alignments will. Some of the rest might as part of a state-wide system, but only if B-Class articles can be created for them. The rest will stay merged into the RCS-style list, which predates the RCS concept by a year. Imzadi 1979 → 16:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, maybe you have traveled in the wrong states. I've mentioned this before, but county roads are different in downstate New York than they are in Utah or rural Florida. ----DanTD (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- They're all full of filler. Who cares how many streets a route follows? Maybe I've traveled to the wrong states, but wherever I've gone, county roads are not major roads and certainly none of them are worthy of inclusion. –Fredddie™ 00:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- The history of 16 isn't that detailed and its RD is full of filler. It could easily be pruned down (i.e. cleaned up) and merged in. – TMF 00:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- 16 has about 5 different streets to it and the article has detailed history that would crowd up the Rockland County-style list, and 21 serves more than just a golf course. 11 serves the Port Jefferson Branch of the Long Island Railroad, and was proposed to be replaced by the never-built North Shore Expressway. ----DanTD (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Mitchazenia and TMF. I don't see anything resembling notability on the articles DanTD would like to keep. CR 16 goes east-west if you don't feel like getting on I-495, CR 21 serves a golf course, and CR 19 was really difficult to find on a map. Merge all. –Fredddie™ 23:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed with Mitch. The whole point of making RCS lists for county routes is to eliminate virtually all of the standalone articles. – TMF 23:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
In New York, different incarnations of route numbers are covered in separate articles. Thus, I don't envision CR 104 being merged into NY 113 anytime soon. The only two plausible scenarios is to 1) merge CR 104 into the RCS list whenever it's made or 2) rename the CR 104 article for the former state route. – TMF 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Renaming Suffolk CR 104 as former NY 113 seems kind of absurd, although the fact that it used to be NY 113 makes it worthy of a stand alone article. ----DanTD (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- The first is the standard for former NY state routes, and also for most former state highways in the United States. The latter is not necessarily true; for example, the original NY 359 in Niagara County redirects to a section of Niagara County's RCS lists. The second NY 363 redirects to an entry in the NY reference route list. And there are dozens more examples where these came from. No state route, active or former, automatically gets a stand-alone article; it all depends on how much can be said about the route, mostly in regards to its history. – TMF 19:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see what you're getting at when it comes to the ex-NY 359, and I suppose it's okay, although I can't understand why there are no shields for the Niagara County lists. I suppose I can live with it. I'd still like to find proof of the former CR 104A, and I'll have to get back to you on the others, and it doesn't change the fact that I still think there are Suffolk CR articles that should stand alone. ----DanTD (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- The first is the standard for former NY state routes, and also for most former state highways in the United States. The latter is not necessarily true; for example, the original NY 359 in Niagara County redirects to a section of Niagara County's RCS lists. The second NY 363 redirects to an entry in the NY reference route list. And there are dozens more examples where these came from. No state route, active or former, automatically gets a stand-alone article; it all depends on how much can be said about the route, mostly in regards to its history. – TMF 19:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Merge them all and move on. End of story. Imzadi 1979 → 00:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Merge all. Surely the California county routes are more notable than these, but they got the RCS treatment too. --Rschen7754 00:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Merge all county routes into a Rockland County-type list or multiple lists. However, if there is sufficient sourced information on one of the highways to merit its own article, such as CR 19, then I am fine with that route having a standalone article. That article should be linked from the Rockland County-type list with a Main Page: template and have a short summary. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Question - What is it about the Suffolk CR 19 article that you think needs more sourced info? There may be some that already exist on other articles, and/or I could have some stashed away in a file somewhere? Otherwise, I'm willing to consider a merger of that one. ----DanTD (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Merge - The Suffolk CRs do not need individual articles. Dough4872 03:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Merge, county routes are rarely notable and seldom worth the effort to provide them with full articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deletion discussion
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways numbered 500 – TMF 15:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Article within scope?
I removed Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices from the project and reassigned it to WikiProject Transport because I believe it is not within the scope and expertise of the project, but I was reverted, so I pose it here for a consensus decision. The project's scope is "articles relating to roadways of national or regional significance in the United States." The infrastructure of the project, including its assessment scale, is designed around articles about the roadways themselves. Looking at the articles within the project, I couldn't readily identify others on the subject of regulation. If this article were included, there are other similar articles concerning government agencies and transportation regulations this would be within that redefined scope. --Bsherr (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- The primary focus of the national project and state subprojects might be the physical roadways themselves, but all of the articles on the state departments of transportation are tagged. The articles on the different highway systems are tagged. There's even a court case from the Supreme Court that is tagged. The MUTCD is very much a part of US highways, and it should be tagged under this project. You're free to dual-tag it for WP:Transport if you like, but it should stay as part of WP:USRD. Imzadi 1979 → 15:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Should articles like DOT pictograms come in too? Is there a way to clarify the scope statement to reflect these accessory articles more specifically than "related to", or to include these articles as examples? --Bsherr (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Portal:U.S. Roads
Although I made the nomination, the credit really goes to the whole project for creating and finding content for the articles, nominating features and ultimately maintaining the Portal. So thank you to everyone, you deserve pats on your backs for helping create a Featured Portal. Imzadi 1979 → 19:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Maryland former route list
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roads in Maryland#Route Lists: Former Maryland State Highways Dough4872 20:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Deletion discussion
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road construction in Houston, Texas --Rschen7754 03:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Merge discussion
I don't see why Central Texas Turnpike System requires a separate article from Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority which builds and maintains the tollways in that system. Fortguy (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Pulaski Skyway FAR
User:Dream out loud has nominated Pulaski Skyway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JJ98 (Talk) 07:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
IP adding CRs
This IP, 66.66.117.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has been inserting county roads into pre-existing instances of {{Jct}}. It's more annoying than troublesome, but it's made Category:Jct template transclusions with missing shields light up like a Christmas tree. Just another thing to keep an eye on. –Fredddie™ 02:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Lessons learned from I-15 in AZ on front page
I've not seen a road article that had a more contentious tenure on the front page then our recent experience with Interstate 15 in Arizona. I suspect this is just a symptom the amount of article rot from the time of FAC review and the time featured on the page (this is one of our older FA's). If you compare today's version from 3 days ago, the article is substantially different. However, I think some good things have come out of this, that merit some wider discussion:
- What does transcontinental mean? In the US it's pretty clear that an east-west coast-to-coast highway can be called transcontinental, but what is the criteria for a north-south highway? Does it need to connect to a major highway in both Canada and Mexico? (In the case of I-15 it connects to a major highway in Canada, and comes very close to the Mexican border, but does not cross)
- What is the defining mileage for an intersection? For states that give the milepost of the offramp, bridge and on-ramp, what is the appropriate figure to use? (For the record, I've used the bridge, if available, offramp if not)
Thoughts please? Dave (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- For the first question, I would say "transcontinental" for east-west highways is a road that runs from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean, such as U.S. Route 30, or from a state along the Pacific Ocean to a state along the Atlantic Ocean (but not necessarily near the ocean), such as U.S. Route 6. For north-south highways, I would say that "transcontinental" is not a valid term, as these highways do not expand a length of the North American continent like east-west highways do. Maybe the term "border-to-border" can be used for highways that run from near the Canadian border to near the Mexican border, otherwise the term "cross-country" can be used for roads that run from Canada to either Mexico of the Gulf of Mexico, as they do cross the country in a north-south sense. For the second question, I generally would use the milepost for the overpass/underpass at an interchange versus the off-ramps. If the interchange is a slip ramp in which the roads interchanging do not cross, I would use the off-ramp for the milepost. Dough4872 19:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- My brief thoughts: transcontinental only applies to east–west highways that literally cross the continent from ocean to ocean. Transnational applies to the north–south highways that run border to border, or Gulf of Mexico to Canada. Dough's other terms, cross-country and border-to-border are good too, so there is variety. As for the mileposting issue, there are three options. Get the MP for the over-/under-pass, average the MP from the two ramp locations, or express the MP as a range. Using the comment's data from the talk page, exit 9 could be expressed 9.83–10.03. Then there is no ambiguity. As for those that claim false precision, we need to educate people that yes, the DOTs do measure to the thousandth of a mile which is only a precision of 5.2 feet. (I had someone tell me in a FAC that the numbers were falsely precise, that MDOT couldn't measure to the half-inch increment, which would be 5 decimal places, not 3.) Imzadi 1979 → 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Second point. When I create junction lists for Iowa, I'm given an entry like this: CO RD M47 INTERCHANGE. The DOT don't say exactly where the measurement takes place, but a safe assumption can be made that it's the point where the hypothetical centerlines of each highway cross. YMMV in other states, but that's how I've handled it. –Fredddie™ 01:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Idea
Would anyone be against automatically sending (after a time period we determine) older Featured Articles to ACR? It could be a safeguard against article rot. I'm not proposing a full-on FAR, but ACR could help iron out the kinks that emerge. –Fredddie™ 01:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think our ACR could help improve older FAs, but I do not think the venue is active enough. If an article truly does not meet the FA criteria, then sending it to FAR is probably the better option. Dough4872 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I like the idea in theory, but it is not going to work unless we actually have people reviewing stuff in ACR in a reasonable amount of time. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- The idea is more of a pre-emptive strike. FAR has two steps, and if the article isn't fixed (if needed) in the first step, then it moves to the second step to be delisted. ACR by definition has highway-based editors watching it, and we all should be providing reviews and comments there, even if we don't make declarations of Support or Oppose. A refresher ACR would be more of a forum to comment on changes needed to the article, or a place to declare Send to FAR. Imzadi 1979 → 20:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I also like the idea in thoery. I think the time for "automatic ACR send-back" should be set to at least a year, of not longer. I agree with Viridius's concerns. However, if we had a more steady stream of articles coming into ACR, perhaps it could motivate some people who haven't participated in a while (like me) to become more active. Dave (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I like the idea in theory, but it is not going to work unless we actually have people reviewing stuff in ACR in a reasonable amount of time. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
U.S. road transport articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the U.S. road transport articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
DYKs
It's the 20th of the month, and we only have 10 days left. We could use some DYK hooks for the portal for October. They can be anything that has run on the Wikipedia Main Page, or stuff that might have been nominated, if only the article met WP:DYK's requirements. Our portal doesn't require recent article creation, or specific amounts of expansion. All that's really needed is a catchy hook that's cited in the article. Any takers? Place your nominations here. Imzadi 1979 → 07:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Discussion on an update to WP:USSH
See here for details. Imzadi 1979 → 03:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Pulaski Skyway
The article has moved from the first stage to the second. It is now up for removal as a Featured Article, instead of just being reviewed. The areas of concern are: "referencing, comprehensiveness, updatedness, lead, formatting". If anyone is in a position to help clear up those concerns, the article could be kept, but if not, it could be delisted in about 2 weeks. Imzadi 1979 → 06:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
AFD
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gainesville Interchange. Dough4872 15:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Exit number inserter
66.66.117.141 is inserting exit numbers into infoboxes using the |name#=
parameter of {{jct}} and doing the same to junction lists. I've reverted 4 articles in Michigan, and moved the exit numbers into the notes column as appropriate, but be on the lookout. My Internet access will be probably limited for the next week or so. I wouldn't exactly call this person's actions vandalism yet, but I have left a note on the IP's talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
U.S. Road Biographies
I realize that the focus of the Project is to improve articles on specific U.S. roads and highways, but there seems to be a gap on Wikipedia when it comes to individuals essential to the history of those roads. I've noted in my research that many people important to the development of auto trails, U.S. numbered highways, and other important roads either have no article, or the article is no more than a stub. For example, Anton L. Westgard, pathfinder for the National Highways Association and AAA, was perhaps the most important individual in the layout of auto trails and later U.S. highways. He lead the National Park to Park Highway motorcade after pathfinding it, named the Midland Trail, criss-crossed the country numerous times, etc. He has no article at all. His brother W. O. L. Westgard was also an important pathfinder for AAA. Other important people such as John Hollis Bankhead, author of the first (1916) federal highway act, and for whom the Bankhead Highway was named, have very short articles indeed. - Parsa (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect that's because most of the people who are actively involved with this project are either engineers or "engineering-minded" people. In other words, I suspect most people here are more interested in the physical and technological aspects of transportation than the political and managerial aspects. With that said, this project has traditionally taken a confrontational approach to the inclusion of articles which are not highways, but highway related. I find this unfortunate. However, if you create an article for Mr. Westgard, I will defend that it is within the scope of the USRD project. I might lose, but I'll defend it =-). Dave (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree and disagree with Dave's assessment. I just don't have much interest in biographical articles, and all of the necessary considerations that go along with them. Having said that, there are non-highway articles that fall under the project's scope, the individual members just don't focus on them much. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Merge proposal
See Talk:Kansas Turnpike#Merge proposal. Dough4872 20:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Florida SR 9A merge proposal
See Talk:Florida State Road 9A#Proposed merger to Interstate 295 (Florida). –Dream out loud (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new bot that can create and upload a full sequence of highway markers. I have already used it to complete Alberta's highways markers and I am looking for new projects. If you provide me a completed SVG template and which signs you are requesting, I will run the bot. At this point this bot only runs on Commons, and will only create "free" images. --Svgalbertian (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is interesting. A few months back, I had a plan to create new elliptical markers currently used by
Circle sign X.svg, and then replace the Circle sign X.svg naming scheme with
actual circles. This plan basically fell through because it was tedious as all get out to make the new markers by hand. This would significantly reduce the amount of effort. Count me in, but I think we should have consensus to actually do this. –Fredddie™ 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
AfD proposal
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 337 (Florida) (3rd nomination) –Fredddie™ 23:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia State Route 638 (Lee, Russell, Scott, Washington, and Wise Counties). Dough4872 04:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:List of Arkansas state highways
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/End_U.S._Route_62_S_1.jpg/250px-End_U.S._Route_62_S_1.jpg)
Arkansas technically has extremely few concurrencies. It has thousands of "sections". Basically whenever two highways meet, the more important one stays continuous, and the lesser route breaks into two sections, one on either side of the route. They never concur unless it is an official exception. This means that basically all of Arkansas' highway pages are inaccurate. Also, this is the case with every route in Arkansas (including U.S. Routes AND Interstates except I-30 which is top dog). What can be done about this? Also, this information is from the book: AHTD Annual Average Daily Traffic Estimate by County, April 2010. This discussion was moved after five days of inactivity at Talk:List of Arkansas state highways. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 15:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- From what I get here, it appears that Arkansas only inventories one route for concurrencies, which is usually the more important route. I know in New Jersey, the straight-line diagram for one route will sometimes direct you to look at another route for a concurrency. For example, in the Route 50 straight-line diagram for the US 40 concurrency, there is a note that says "MP 18.50 = Begin Coinc. With US 40 MP 46.35 MP 18.50-19.18 See NJ 40 MP 46.35-46.97". However, this is different from Arkansas as NJ 50 is signed along US 40. In Arkansas, we need to determine what route connect the segments of several discontinuous routes, such as Arkansas Highway 74. Dough4872 16:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dough you are correct. Usually major routes are signed, for example US 71 is signed along I-540. This is probably done simply for ease of travel, because without these signs, travelers would be almost perpetually confused. However, state highways are almost never signed together. Having those straight-line diagrams would be a dream come true for this project, because right now these are all I have. There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to when an exception occurs, and when highways split. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, since AASHTO considers the US Highways and Interstates to be through routes, even if AHTD doesn't, I would proceed on the assumption that they are concurrent, even if not signed. The sections might end, but the through route does not. Have you tried to contact someone at AHTD for assistance in finding log files, SLDs or some other sources? Imzadi 1979 → 18:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)We do have some precedence. California and Utah similarly have no concurrencies in the "official" route description. I would say use common sense. For examples I'm familiar with, U.S. Route 89 in Utah in state code has 7 different segments. However, per AASHTO it is a continuous highway. Plus, to detail every segment in an exit list would be a waste of time and article space when the implied concurrencies are so obvious. As such, this article presents the highway as a contiguous highway, which I support. However, Utah State Route 30 (3 segments) and Interstate 84 (Utah) (2 segments) have gaps of significant length. Particularly in the case of SR30, it would not be uncommon for someone to have driven 1 of the segments 100 times, and not even know the other segment exists. So in those two cases, the gap(s) are well covered in the article. I would definitely say DO NOT waste the readers time detailing every gap when most are insignificant. Dave (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Imzadi, the AHTD has not once answered my questions about the state highway system. It is more than a little frustrating. Moabdave, at what point does it become obvious that two routes are "secretly multiplexed" as opposed to totally separate sections? When is it okay to assume concurrencies as opposed to separate sections? Should we create a standard for this? Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 23:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, there is a solution: request the information from AHTD under the Freedom of Information Act. Of course once you mention FOIA, you'll end up getting a bill for copying/scanning and research, but unless they're outrageous it is one way to get the information you seek. I didn't have to do that with WisDOT. Supposedly no one has been able to get copies of the state trunkline highway logs before, but I have two regions' logs sitting on my bookshelf, and a request for the electronic edition of the 2009 log pending. Sometimes you just need to separately e-mail the different regional offices until someone favorable replies. As for secret concurrencies, Interstates and US Highways are obvious as they aren't discontinuous under AASHTO standards, even if the signage doesn't agree. As for state highways, follow the signage. If AHTD posts the second number along a concurrency, then treat it as one. Likewise if map makers show a concurrency. Otherwise I'd assume they were separate sections. (Remember that {{infobox road}} does up to 4 sections. Anything more I'd switch ti {{infobox road small}} in the article.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Imzadi, the AHTD has not once answered my questions about the state highway system. It is more than a little frustrating. Moabdave, at what point does it become obvious that two routes are "secretly multiplexed" as opposed to totally separate sections? When is it okay to assume concurrencies as opposed to separate sections? Should we create a standard for this? Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 23:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dough you are correct. Usually major routes are signed, for example US 71 is signed along I-540. This is probably done simply for ease of travel, because without these signs, travelers would be almost perpetually confused. However, state highways are almost never signed together. Having those straight-line diagrams would be a dream come true for this project, because right now these are all I have. There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to when an exception occurs, and when highways split. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would really like avoiding forcing information out of the Department through FOI if at all possible, but it looks like that may be my best option. My emails are sent like pinballs around the departments, and my paper letters are stamped "received (date)" and sent back but not answered. It is disappointing to say the least. How many questions about routing do you think AHTD gets per year? Probably not a lot. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 01:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "Moabdave, at what point does it become obvious that two routes are "secretly multiplexed" as opposed to totally separate sections?" Oh sure, make me answer with specifics =-). If AHTD publishes control cities, that would be one way. For example, if one segment has control cities that reside on another segment, that would indicate it should be treated as a contiguous highway. Another possibility for a standard would be what do the mileposts do at the start of the second section? I.E. does the milepost start where the last milepost of the previous section left off, or does it include the distance of the concurrent section. However, from what I'm gathering, AHTD doesn't make much information publicly available. In that case it's a judgment call until more information becomes available. Also, for the record, using those two proposals as standards, the I-84 example above should reflect the highway as a contiguous highway. So I was mistaken about that example. Dave (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Should there be a standard established (i.e. a break over ten miles means a new section)? Or just use judgement? Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 20:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- For US and Interstate highways, it should be considered a contiguous highway, unless the federal definition also has a discontinuity. For state highways, I think it has to be a judgment call, barring evidence like mentioned in my previous post. Dave (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I know Pennsylvania Route 29 is two segments, but is one article as the two segments were once connected. Dough4872 22:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we can set an absolute standard for this situation. As Dave says, the Interstates and US Highways are all continuous by definition, regardless of what the DOT in each state does in their logs, maps or "internal" signage. (By internal, I mean any sign that the average motorist is not supposed to use as an aid to navigation.) As for state highways, just use your best judgement and follow what the reliable sources say. Imzadi 1979 → 22:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I know Pennsylvania Route 29 is two segments, but is one article as the two segments were once connected. Dough4872 22:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
One-way pairs in junction lists?
I noticed the new junction list in Maryland Route 272 includes mileposts for the termini of one-way pairs, it is the first such occurrence I have ever seen. Is it against USRD standard for one-way pair termini to be included, or should they be included in all junction lists where applicable? Dough4872 03:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point worth discussing. --Rschen7754 07:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I don't see it as a very notable thing to add to a junction list. --Admrboltz (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is more or less the same thing as listing the termini of freeway and divided highway sections on a road that has multiple classes of designations. I do think we need to discuss this. While this is the first time I've seen a 1-way-pairing in the junctions list, listing the freeway and non-freeway changeovers is common in the junctions list. So if we decide listing places where the road classification changes is appropriate, we should consider a new name for the junctions list. If not, we need to decide where these should be mentioned. Dave (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- IMO, including termini of one-way pairs is too cumbersome for the junction list, especially if the route runs through an urban area and follows several one-way streets. Including the termini of divided highway segments in the junction list is also unnecessary for the same reason, as a route may alternate between being divided and undivided several times. However, including the changeover between freeway and non-freeway is important as there is a stark difference between the two classes of road. Dough4872 22:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think either one-way pairs or freeway termini are worth mentioning in a junction list, unless there's a really good reason (see Capitol Loop). After all, we're interested in the junctions along the highway, not the characteristics of the highway. Anything else can and should be mentioned in the route description. –Fredddie™ 23:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the point of not mentioning one-way pairs, but mentioning freeway termini in a junction list help indicate that all the junctions on that stretch of roads are interchanges. Mentioning the termini in two rows is better than having to repeat "Interchange" in the notes column for freeway interchanges. Dough4872 23:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I list the freeway transition points for one good reason that's not related to one-way pairings: we're supposed to list all exits along a freeway, but we only list major junctions along at-grade roadways. Of course if a freeway transition corresponds to junction in the list, I use that for the location. As for one-way pairs, I don't see the point. On Capitol Loop, I used the notes column to indicate the two street names when two-way Michigan Avenue intersections with the one way Cedar and Larch streets, which is appropriate, at the BL I-96 junction. Anything more is probably overkill and should be in the RD, not the JL. Imzadi 1979 → 23:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- For most of the articles I've seen where "begin Freeway" and "end freeway" are listed in the junctions list, the same information is somewhat obvious from the exit number column. However, I'll grant that that may not always be the case. With that said, I don't really have a dog in this fight, so I'll go with whatever.Dave (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I list the freeway transition points for one good reason that's not related to one-way pairings: we're supposed to list all exits along a freeway, but we only list major junctions along at-grade roadways. Of course if a freeway transition corresponds to junction in the list, I use that for the location. As for one-way pairs, I don't see the point. On Capitol Loop, I used the notes column to indicate the two street names when two-way Michigan Avenue intersections with the one way Cedar and Larch streets, which is appropriate, at the BL I-96 junction. Anything more is probably overkill and should be in the RD, not the JL. Imzadi 1979 → 23:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the point of not mentioning one-way pairs, but mentioning freeway termini in a junction list help indicate that all the junctions on that stretch of roads are interchanges. Mentioning the termini in two rows is better than having to repeat "Interchange" in the notes column for freeway interchanges. Dough4872 23:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think either one-way pairs or freeway termini are worth mentioning in a junction list, unless there's a really good reason (see Capitol Loop). After all, we're interested in the junctions along the highway, not the characteristics of the highway. Anything else can and should be mentioned in the route description. –Fredddie™ 23:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- IMO, including termini of one-way pairs is too cumbersome for the junction list, especially if the route runs through an urban area and follows several one-way streets. Including the termini of divided highway segments in the junction list is also unnecessary for the same reason, as a route may alternate between being divided and undivided several times. However, including the changeover between freeway and non-freeway is important as there is a stark difference between the two classes of road. Dough4872 22:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thinking about this a little more, I think if such things must be mentioned (i.e. Begin one-way pair, end freeway, begin super2, etc.) the more appropriate place is the notes column, rather than a separate entry in the table.
- The problem with that thinking is that many freeway termini are not at interchanges but rather at arbitrary points along the road. In addition, listing the one-way pairs would be overkill. Dough4872 20:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- For termini that don't align to exiting junctions, I use the "bridge" method of a junction. That is, I insert the milepost for the location, and then a cell that spans the exit/destinations/notes column of the table with "Freeway begins/ends" centered. For an article that uses both, see U.S. Route 31 in Michigan. Imzadi 1979 → 22:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with that thinking is that many freeway termini are not at interchanges but rather at arbitrary points along the road. In addition, listing the one-way pairs would be overkill. Dough4872 20:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
United States related Tag and Assess proposa
There is a proposal on WikiProject United States to task Xenobot with tagging and assessment of articles that fall into the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Please take a few moments to provide your comments about this proposal.
If you are interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject United States please add your name under the applicable section here. --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of this; it seems like extra clutter for article talk pages. --Rschen7754 17:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- May I ask why you feel that way? Having the banner on the talk page serves several different purposes but I am interested to know what makes you feel that way. I am sure you are not the only one. --Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Theoretically every single state that a route goes through could tag the article, but when said state WP doesn't do anything for maintenance or have set standards of assessment, it's just 3-4 tags that clutter up the talk page. I've seen instances where they try to claim our FAs but not our stubs, when they haven't even done any work on the FAs to begin with. I don't see the point of adding another meaningless tag to every single page. WP:USRD has assessed the articles already, so it's really moot for us. --Rschen7754 17:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the value of tagging all U.S. Road articles to be part of wikiproject US as the connection is already implied, but I don't see the harm either. Dave (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Makes complete sense. Because I wasn't familiar with this project I wasnt aware of them already being assessed so thats good to know. My priority right now isnt so much the articles that have a US related banner andway but the ones that dont have one at all, which are unfortunately abundant. I will look into not adding an extra banner where yours already exists. You may be interested to know that I am going to Try and fix some of the banner rot by rolling some of the Inactive, dufunct and other wise nonproductive Wikiprojects up under the WPUS umbrella in much the same way that WPMILHIST does taskforces. Just because one state is active and has its own project doesnt mean all 50 need one. There might be a lot of sublinks but basically there would be one banner. The exception being the active projects like this one. It will likely be a while though and my intent is to roll them in one or 2 at a time as I get concensus. But thats the plan. --Kumioko (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the value of tagging all U.S. Road articles to be part of wikiproject US as the connection is already implied, but I don't see the harm either. Dave (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Theoretically every single state that a route goes through could tag the article, but when said state WP doesn't do anything for maintenance or have set standards of assessment, it's just 3-4 tags that clutter up the talk page. I've seen instances where they try to claim our FAs but not our stubs, when they haven't even done any work on the FAs to begin with. I don't see the point of adding another meaningless tag to every single page. WP:USRD has assessed the articles already, so it's really moot for us. --Rschen7754 17:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- May I ask why you feel that way? Having the banner on the talk page serves several different purposes but I am interested to know what makes you feel that way. I am sure you are not the only one. --Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with what's said above. In my personal case, the Michigan project doesn't do a damn thing on the Michigan highway articles. They tagged only a few dozen of the hundreds of articles, and didn't seem concerned that the rest weren't tagged. They don't even notice when articles are at FAC, so long ago we set up the relationship whereby WP:MSHP is considered a subproject of both WP:USRD and WP:MICH. Then all of the MICH banners were pulled off the articles. If additional banners were placed, I'd only support WPUS banners on national-scope highway articles. Why should WPUS be concerned with M-157 (Michigan highway)? Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is redundant for WPUS to tag USRD articles since USRD is a related project. Dough4872 02:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree w/ Dough --Admrboltz (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input and I am inclined to agree. I left a comment on the WikiProject United States talk page to remind myself (and other as they swing by) to not include these. I will continue to watch this talk page but please let me know if you have any additional comments. --Kumioko (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree w/ Dough --Admrboltz (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is redundant for WPUS to tag USRD articles since USRD is a related project. Dough4872 02:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Question about Roads, streets and Highways
Does this project cover roads, streets and highways or is there a limit in the scope of the project? --Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- See our scope as on the project page; our project does not cover city streets, for one. --Rschen7754 20:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is a sibling project, WP:USST for streets. As for the roads vs. highways distinction, it has been my impression that it is an historical accident that the overall project is "roads" and not "highways". My experience is that this project deals mostly with state highways (which includes Interstates and the United States Numbered Highway System). There used to be full-fledged subprojects for the Interstates (WP:IH) and US Highways (WP:USH) so the overall parent project couldn't use "U.S. Highways" for its name, even though that describes it better. We really don't cover anything beyond that which is related to the state highways and some county roads. Imzadi 1979 → 23:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Proposed move
I have proposed a move at Talk:Florida State Road 212 and would like some feedback. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also see Talk:Maryland Route 200#Requested move. Dough4872 00:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
AfDs
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 507 (Brevard County, Florida), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 503 (Brevard County, Florida), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 342 (Leon County, Florida). Imzadi 1979 → 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Links to mileage/junction sources
I feel as if one of the most difficult sources of information to find when writing road articles is junction milage. They're usually buried somewhere within the state DOT's website and take a lot of searching to find. Some state DOTs don't even provide this information and it can be even more frustrating to search for this information, only to find out it doesn't exist. I think a good idea would be to create a subpage of this project with a table of links for mileage/junction information for each state's DOT. I started a page already with five states at User:Dream out loud/DOTs. Any input on this idea? –Dream out loud (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Awesome. This kinda goes along with the AID proposal I made a couple months back. Most of us liked the idea of figuring out where the data is first before we try to improve a state as a group. That being said, we already have WP:USRD/L, which is where this table should go. –Fredddie™ 21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I had a feeling that there was already a similar page. But I think a table in addition to individual sections would be very useful for states with data easily accessible from a webpage or PDF file (as opposed to downloading CSV files or GIS data). –Dream out loud (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I added Utah and Washington to your list Dream out oud --Admrboltz (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Added DE, MD, and MS to table as well. Dough4872 02:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Um, shouldn't all of these resources all be in the same location, rather than fragmenting them further? The goal should be to have things in one spot so editors can find them. Folks, please all of these resources to WP:USRD/L. It's fine if Dream out loud wants his own list, but that just makes it harder for other editors to find the information. Imzadi 1979 → 04:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Um, I do plan to put the table on the same page. If you read above you would have noticed that. I just created the table on my user page to get some feedback before moving it into the project. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the spirit of what you are doing, Dream Out Loud. However, I do not think we need a table on WP:USRD/L in addition to the current list. For states with data easily accessible from a webpage or PDF file, that information can just as easily be expressed in the current list. Conversely, for states where that data is easily accessible, but requires a little explanation on how to use it, a table provides no advantage in giving that explanation. The only advantage of a table is it is sortable, but that is only an advantage in the first 20 seconds a person uses it. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I think the table format is cleaner than the current format. Dough4872 01:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. Currently, each state has a nice section where the sources can be listed with full explanations on how to use them. Some sources can't be distilled down to a short set of instructions on how to use the data given. In that case, the full paragraphs or numbered lists of instructions will bloat a table, and then we lose the cleanliness of the table. Sorry, the current format works just fine. Just please add all of the newly found sources to it with new subsections as necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 01:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I think the table format is cleaner than the current format. Dough4872 01:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the spirit of what you are doing, Dream Out Loud. However, I do not think we need a table on WP:USRD/L in addition to the current list. For states with data easily accessible from a webpage or PDF file, that information can just as easily be expressed in the current list. Conversely, for states where that data is easily accessible, but requires a little explanation on how to use it, a table provides no advantage in giving that explanation. The only advantage of a table is it is sortable, but that is only an advantage in the first 20 seconds a person uses it. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Um, I do plan to put the table on the same page. If you read above you would have noticed that. I just created the table on my user page to get some feedback before moving it into the project. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Um, shouldn't all of these resources all be in the same location, rather than fragmenting them further? The goal should be to have things in one spot so editors can find them. Folks, please all of these resources to WP:USRD/L. It's fine if Dream out loud wants his own list, but that just makes it harder for other editors to find the information. Imzadi 1979 → 04:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Added DE, MD, and MS to table as well. Dough4872 02:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be a nice way to keep the links organized, in addition to a list. But I don't want to create an entire table if users are against it and will most likely remove it. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to help with WikiProject United States
![]() | Hello, WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 17! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject United States, an outreach effort which aims to support development of United States related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!! |
Question about the scope of the project
Sorry for my ignorance but I wanted to clarify a scope question about this project. I have found quite a few articles related to Laws, accidents, legal cases, people, etc that would seem to possibly fall into the scope of this project but it seems as though the project only covers the actualy road. Which is fine I just wanted to undeerstand. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Typically, we only cover articles about a state highway (or in some cases a county road) or major interchanges/intersections. Other articles though are covered. For instance, we have Speed limits in the United States, National Maximum Speed Law, Federal Highway Administration (and all of the state DOTs) Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe tagged as well as the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Please list some of those other articles though so we can make a determination. Mostly the gut instinct of mine is to tag only things that directly affect the highway systems in the US. (Many generalized concepts are tagged under our parent project, WP:HWY.) Each state subproject has slightly different scope criteria on state-level criteria. Other comments and views are welcome though. Imzadi 1979 → 17:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
A different kind of deletion discussion
The project's logo has been uploaded to Commons. There is a discussion on whether or not it should be deleted from Commons at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:USRD logo.svg. Please note, that the logo is still hosted locally on Wikipedia and this discussion will not affect that. Imzadi 1979 → 07:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Interstate Highway System articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Interstate Highway System articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
U.S. Highway system articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the U.S. Highway system articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Additional road sections in infobox
The template {{Infobox road}} only allows for up to 4 discontinuous sections in the infobox. But I am working on the infobox for Florida State Road A1A, and that road has 9 discontinuous sections (it's broken into 3 at the moment, but there are actually 9). Should we look into adding more parameters to the infobox, or should we handle the infobox differently in this situation? –Dream out loud (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- In situations like that, I would use {{infobox road small}} for each section and include the regular infobox at the top with the overall summary info. In these cases as well, you should not reuse the same heading titles per the MOS. (It creates problems knowing which "Route description" section is meant by a link.) If you need to subdivide each segment's section of the article up, there's a neat little trick. Just as the colon at the start of a line indents, the semi-colon character at the start of a line turns it into a boldface line of text. Back to your original point though, we shouldn't be increasing the potential length of the infobox. We already limit to 10 junctions to keep the size down. 5 more road segments would definitely make it longer than any lead you could right. Imzadi 1979 → 01:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
RfD
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 11#Primary State Highway 19 (Washington) --Admrboltz (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
USRD logo rebranding
What do you all think of replacing the current image on the USRD banner and the navbar with the USRD logo on the newsletter? Basically: →
–Fredddie™ 05:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support - I Personally like the USRD logo better than the picture. --Kumioko (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Admrboltz (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support as the person who set up the logo on the userbox, I welcome the rebranding. Imzadi 1979 → 17:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Go for it. – TMF 21:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
--Admrboltz (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Doing...
- Uh, oh. I was doing it too... We'll see who wins the edit conflict =-) Dave (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I wish I had the bit so I could join in on the fun... Imzadi 1979 → 03:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Done Got there first Dave ;) --Admrboltz (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I think you've got the right temperament for an admin. If you REALLY want I'll nominate you. However, I'd give it some serious consideration, the last several RfA's I've participated have been just brutal, as in Harry Reid vs Sharon Angle brutal. Plus, as brutal as most RfA's are nowdays, you might be better off if someone from outside the project nominates you. Dave (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Moved the image to commons as well. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
How about this idea: replacing the current portal image ( , stored at Template:Portal/Images/U.S. Roads) with the logo? I don't know if we want to extend the "rebranding" to the portal or not, but if we do, that's the template to change. – TMF 10:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I was just thinking about that this morning, but I think that we should hold off on that. (It would extend the usage of the image to mainspace, which might be an argument on Commons to retain the image there.) Imzadi 1979 → 13:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- A bit of a bump: the commons DR was closed three days ago. Perhaps it's time to revisit this proposal. – TMF 09:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
On the lighter side....
Here is an article that spells out very clearly why we should not overly rely on Google Maps (and similar mapping services) in the articles: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/google-maps-error-blamed-for-nicaraguan-invasion/ Dave (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Heh I heard that on the radio the other morning, and yes I know GMaps isn't always right, tried to do Washington State Route 903 and the map was totally wrong for the first mile or so... --Admrboltz (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I only use Google as a source for satellite imagery in the articles as I have found numerous errors in their cartography. Dough4872 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- And who could forget Argleton? –Dream out loud (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is well known that secondary roads in Virginia do not exist in the cities, yet there are numerous instances where Google Maps shows one snaking through the city to join 2 county segments. Also, there are places where Google maps calls a road "County Road xxx", when there are no county roads in Virginia. --Tim Sabin (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- All sources have the potential for errors. I've found newspaper articles that get details on highways wrong. Either they omit the second highway in a concurrency, upgrade a freeway to Interstate status when it is not, etc. The key with every source is to verify it with other sources. Google makes an excellent source city street names and satellite imagery, but any RD section I work on is also cited to the official state map or another source or two. Imzadi 1979 → 15:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Typically, when writing a route description, I use Google Maps as a source for satellite imagery and either a milepost log book or state highway map for the route numbers and towns. Dough4872 16:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- And look into visitor's guides and tour books as well. For the UP articles, I've found that using Hunt's Guide to the Upper Peninsula helps flesh out some of the story of the landmarks long the way. News articles about prominent landmarks can also be useful, with the goal to avoid the whole section reading like a "turn here, drive there, follow this, cross that" set of directions. The goal of course should be to use multiple sources in different ways to weave together the story of the road. Imzadi 1979 → 16:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Typically, when writing a route description, I use Google Maps as a source for satellite imagery and either a milepost log book or state highway map for the route numbers and towns. Dough4872 16:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- All sources have the potential for errors. I've found newspaper articles that get details on highways wrong. Either they omit the second highway in a concurrency, upgrade a freeway to Interstate status when it is not, etc. The key with every source is to verify it with other sources. Google makes an excellent source city street names and satellite imagery, but any RD section I work on is also cited to the official state map or another source or two. Imzadi 1979 → 15:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is well known that secondary roads in Virginia do not exist in the cities, yet there are numerous instances where Google Maps shows one snaking through the city to join 2 county segments. Also, there are places where Google maps calls a road "County Road xxx", when there are no county roads in Virginia. --Tim Sabin (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- And who could forget Argleton? –Dream out loud (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I only use Google as a source for satellite imagery in the articles as I have found numerous errors in their cartography. Dough4872 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose it's fortunate that we aren't using GMaps for war plans though... :) It'd be nice if, alongside the vast plethora of information, the internet brought common sense. As for Argleton, why does that have an article? There are thousands of these anomalies on GMaps and Bing! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder if Nicaragua's "Google Defense" will be as effective as the famed Twinkie Defense. As for your second point, I agree, an encyclopedia article, on a Map error? Dave (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why not? We have Beatosu and Goblu, Ohio with an article. Imzadi 1979 → 18:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder if Nicaragua's "Google Defense" will be as effective as the famed Twinkie Defense. As for your second point, I agree, an encyclopedia article, on a Map error? Dave (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Arkansas Highways mileages
Since there are no concurrencies in Arkansas, how should mileages be displayed? Should the "implicit" mileage be included even though it is technically not really part of the route? It was mentioned here earlier to use the intuitive concurrencies in the route descriptions even if they are not signed in reality, but do we also do this for the mileages? Moved after inactivity from Talk:List of Arkansas state highways. Brandonrush Wooo pig sooie 15:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
AFD
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of special routes in Michigan. Dough4872 04:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Examples of RCS
I have started a list of examples on the Rockland County Scenario (RCS) subpage of WP:USRD so people unfamiliar with RCS can look at examples to better understand the process and implement it in their own work. When you have a chance, please add examples for your own areas, or suggest here in talk what kind of examples we should be providing to cover as many scenarios as possible. VC 21:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not much, but I wrote some guidelines for New York county route RCS lists at Wikipedia:NYCR#Rockland County Scenario that links to a couple of RCS examples. Since the RCS is mostly used for CR systems (at least from what I've seen), we should include at least one on the page. – TMF 22:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, this is covered in our notability guideline WP:USRD/NT. Don't take this personally, but can wee please refer to it by a less obscure name, such as "articles with a list of minor highways" or similar? Dave (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have a question regarding handling Interstate and U.S. highways. Should business and bannered routes have national or state pages? As it is, we're not very consistent. For instance, we have Business routes of Interstate 10 describing all such routes in all states where the business routes occur, while Interstate 20 is treated on a state-by-state manner in the two states where it has such routes. I-20 Bus. in Texas has its own page as the number of routes within the state are legion (Business Routes of Interstate 20 in Texas), while the only route outside of Texas is a subsection in I-20's South Carolina article (Interstate 20 in South Carolina#Business route). We also have articles such as Interstate 90 Business and Bannered routes of U.S. Route 67 that, when properly expanded for all routes in all states in those articles, will become monstrously long. Another, US 54, has only a single bannered route handled in the state article (U.S. Route 54 in Texas#El Paso business loop) even though, like US 67, the highway goes from the Mexican border to Illinois. Also note the inconsistent article naming conventions: Business routes of Interstate 10 v. Interstate 90 Business. Fortguy (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, here's my take on it. If there are business routes (or other special routes) in multiple states, then the list should be national. However, if a state has many of them (there are 9 or former BL/BS I-75s and 10 current or former BUS US 127s in Michigan), that might warrant a separate RCS list by state. As for the naming, the lists should be at Business routes of Interstate # and Interstate X Business should be a redirect. Imzadi 1979 → 20:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Another, somewhat related issue is the naming convention for the USH lists. It's been well established that "bannered routes" is a neologism, yet it's still extensively used in both the lists' name and in some articles as the name of a subsection. The lack of a suitable replacement term ("special route"? really?) is what makes me wary of the concept in the first place. So, as a result, the "special" routes in New York are covered in subsections of the parent's article, using the designation and not "bannered routes" or "special routes" or whatever as the section title.
- I would prefer to have the special routes covered in the relevant state-detail article of their parent since, IMO, that's where they're most relevant. If we went the way of shunting everything to national lists once a route has two or more subroutes, for lack of a better term, that would lead to a bit of redundancy in a few cases. As an example, US 62 Business in Niagara Falls, New York, would likely be mentioned in no less than three places: the national list for US 62; US 62 in New York, since I think it's a very bad idea to not mention it there; and its own article. I am open to a separate RCS list for a state if multiple subroutes (more than three or four, for example) exist in a state, however.
- At least there's no controversy over the name of IH business routes. Since there aren't any in New York, I'm indifferent as to how those are handled. – TMF 20:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Like TMF, I am somewhat indifferent to what happens with the Interstate business routes, since I do not have a dog in the fight. However, I think for consistency whatever we figure out with regard to U.S. highways should be applied similarly to the Interstates. For the U.S. highways, I am in favor of handling detailed information about bannered routes at the state level. This would mean putting the bannered routes in the state-detail articles, unless a particular state-detail article does not exist for a highway, due to either lack of a state-detail article for a particular state or the highway being in three or fewer states. Within the state-detail articles, the bannered routes can be either described in full; summarized with a link to a list of bannered routes for that highway in that state; or a mix of the two with some routes described in full in the state-detail article and others split into their own articles if warranted, RCS-style. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule that would need to be worked out; for instance, what to do with a bannered route that passes through multiple states. My main rationale for these ideas is Interstate and U.S. highways are state highways that line up at state lines and carry the same number in the same shield through multiple states. VC 23:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, here's my take on it. If there are business routes (or other special routes) in multiple states, then the list should be national. However, if a state has many of them (there are 9 or former BL/BS I-75s and 10 current or former BUS US 127s in Michigan), that might warrant a separate RCS list by state. As for the naming, the lists should be at Business routes of Interstate # and Interstate X Business should be a redirect. Imzadi 1979 → 20:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess I don't have much of a dog in this fight either. MI has so many of them that there should be a state-level list except for BUS US 2 in Ironwood. I can merge that over into the parent s-d article now that that article exists at a decent level. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- IMO, this is how bannered routes should be handled. National lists by route should exist for Interstate Business routes and bannered U.S. routes, such as Business routes of Interstate 75 or Bannered routes of U.S. Route 13. The U.S. route list should cover all bannered routes such as alternate, business, and truck routes, including approritaely suffixed routes acting in the same fashion such as U.S. Route 31A. It may be possible to rename the lists to "Special routes of U.S. Route X" since the suffixed routes are not truly bannered. In the case an interstate or U.S. route does not have enough special routes to warrant a list, such as Interstate 83 and U.S. Route 113, then the routes may be covered in the main article. Bannered and suffixed state routes should generally be covered in the main article since there is typically not enough routes to warrant a separate list. Dough4872 02:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, in some of my ACR's and GAN's I have been talking about legends in maps... I created something quickly over on commons, which can be added as a standardized legend based off the specs at WP:USRD/MTF. Thoughts, concerns, questions? --Admrboltz (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- There's also File:Us map legend.svg, but the concept of including legends with maps never really caught on. – TMF 01:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ive seemn that before somewhere... but really our maps are great for someone who understands the lines like we all do, but does an average user understand it? --Admrboltz (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we need anything that in depth. I think a simple explanation of what the colors mean, similar to what I did on the US 30 in Iowa map, should suffice for most cases. –Fredddie™ 03:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ive seemn that before somewhere... but really our maps are great for someone who understands the lines like we all do, but does an average user understand it? --Admrboltz (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Commons Deletion Request
commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:I-82_extension.png --Admrboltz (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates
I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Deletion discussion
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakersfield Freeway Network --Rschen7754 02:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
AWB request
Could someone with AWB run it over U.S. Route 30 in Iowa for overlinking? This is the last issue brought up with the peer review that is holding me back from going to FAC. Thanks in advance. –Fredddie™ 07:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
SFD
See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/25#Category:Harrisburg area road stubs. Dough4872 02:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Discussion at WT:TXSH
I started a discussion about Texas having lists of highways in counties versus having templates of highways in counties. –Fredddie™ 22:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Check out the discussion on the differences between TXSH and USRD article standards. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
By-county categories for state highways only, part two
I first posted about the by-county categories for state highways in Florida in August, but nothing ever really came out of that discussion. In the time since then, I've found by-county categories for state highways in Arkansas as well. With the recent proliferation of "Transportation in Foo County, Bar" categories, the by-county state highway categories have become obsolete thanks to their uber-narrow scope. Since the (abbreviated) consensus of the last discussion was that these cats should be canned, I suppose I'm asking for assistance in setting up the CFD(s). At the moment, I don't have the time to set up a large umbrella nom nor tag 70 or so categories with a CFD notice. I'm willing to help in some form, but as of right now I can't bear the whole load. – TMF 07:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am not sure if the situation in Maryland is analogous to what we are trying to do here. "Category:State highways in Maryland" does not have county subcategories. The only subcategory is for Maryland Route 200, which is not something I am touching at this time. However, there is a "Category:Roads in Maryland" with a subcategory "Category:Roads in Maryland by county" with subcategories for each county. For instance, there is a "Category:Roads in Garrett County, Maryland" for highways in Garrett County. Over 95% of the articles within these categories are state highways. I personally like these categories because they allow me to quickly access articles for highways in a particular county. I do not think these county categories are too narrow a scope for a category, but I understand the opposing sentiment. If consensus is in favor of eliminating these categories, I would be willing to put together a plan to eventually retire these categories. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I use them in Arkansas because they help differentiate the countless highways of the same number that are totally separate routes which share number only. These categories also help show the duplicity (actually usually multiplicity) of these state highways. These categories also act as a type of "county map" that show the routes within a county. Brandonrush (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) @VC: There are "Roads in Foo County, Florida" cats too. I'm not sure how I feel about them; they could be valid subcats of the Transportation in Foo County cats since their scope is somewhat wider than the state highway cats, but I can envision a situation where a rural county has only two roads, and both are in a Roads cat that is a subcat of an otherwise empty Transportation cat.
- @ BR: I'm not following the first couple of statements. As for the last point, the Transportation in Foo County, Arkansas cats would do the same thing, and would also have U.S. and Interstate Highways that don't fall into the other categories' scope. – TMF 18:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- So this is a proposed name change to Transportation at whatever county, Arkansas instead of the current format?. Brandonrush (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- From what I understand, other, non-USRD editors have already created them or are in the process of making them. Complete sets were made for a few states recently, and I can't imagine that sets for the others are far behind. Now, while a set exists for Florida, I see that there isn't one for Arkansas at the moment. It could be easily created via AWB, though. – TMF 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that they were being made. I would imagine Arkansas would be near the bottom of their priority list though. Those are probably the same editors that complain about my Arkansas articles being crappy. Oh well. Brandonrush (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- IMO, the "Transportation in Foo County, Bar" categories should be standard in categorizing state-detail Interstate and U.S. Route pages, as well as state route pages. These categories are also useful as they categorize railroads, airports, etc. However, I would also be accepting if the "Transportation in Foo County, Bar" categories had subcategories for roads, railroads, and airports within that specific county. Dough4872 19:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can see some benefit to having subcats to transportation for all roads, railroads, etc. in a county, but consider this situation in Calhoun County, Florida. Category:State Roads in Calhoun County, Florida has three articles. Its parent, Category:Roads in Calhoun County, Florida, has zero. That category's parent, Category:Transportation in Calhoun County, Florida, has one article, the county's airport. I think we can all agree that in this case, there is no need for any categories beyond the Transportation cat. – TMF 22:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The case of Calhoun County proves that in reality, we only need the transportation by county category. Even if the county in question is a more urban county with several roads, airports, and railroad lines, the one category for all still should not be a problem. Dough4872 19:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Bumping so this doesn't get archived by the bot. – TMF 08:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a bot that can create all of these at once? Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 16:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- And as a proof of concept, I created all of Arkansas' categories in just 10 minutes using AWB. See Category:Transportation in Arkansas by county. – TMF 18:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Bumped again. Guess I'm going to have to take a couple of days this week and get the ball rolling on this myself. – TMF 10:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Another bump so I don't have to pull it back out of the archives later. I plan on getting to this sometime in the next day or two. – TMF 00:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I just hand coded Category:Transportation in New Mexico by county and associated sub cats, and populated them all... shows how slow it is at work :p --Admrboltz (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
User:71.234.165.197
I don't remember if this is the IP range that has been problematic in the past, but he's been damaging exit lists: http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Garden_State_Parkway&diff=prev&oldid=400585485 http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Interstate_520&diff=395378254&oldid=380779610 --NE2 21:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Merge discussion
See Talk:New Jersey Turnpike#Merger proposal. Dough4872 01:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Suggested policy change to the tagging of non article items
I have submitted a proposal at the Village pump regarding tagging non article items in Wikipedia. Please take a moment and let me know what you think. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Santa Clara County Expressway System AfD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Expressway System --Admrboltz (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
{{jct}} problem
Georgia State Route 515 - note the lack of spacing between the SR 372 shield and the I-575 text. --NE2 22:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do you know what the fix should be? I don't have time to mess with it know, but I can lift the protection so you can do it, if you already have the solution. Dave (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
AFD
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities on U.S. Route 66. Dough4872 03:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
SfD
See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/13 for an upmerger dealing with the NY stub types. Imzadi 1979 → 11:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
CR AFD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 308B (Putnam County, Florida) --Admrboltz (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject U.S. Roads Triple Crown
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/US_Roads_Triple_Crown.jpg/275px-US_Roads_Triple_Crown.jpg)
Your Majesties, thank you for all your hard work. This award is for the project itself. Over the next few days, copies of the award will be presented to Mitchazenia, NE2, Scott5114, Moabdave, Imzadi1979, Holderca1, Algorerhythms and Rschen7754. Well done! What a grand effort. When more people qualify to join please let me know. Warm regards – SMasters (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Possible hoax
Interstate 365 - has no reliable hits on Google and zero hits in terms of news sources. – TMF 22:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- The user has created at least one other hoax, Interstate 524. Not to mention that the "road" runs three miles in literally the middle of nowhere, and Birmingham is spelled "Birmington". Worse, the user is apparently unable to write a coherent English sentence, and he even wrote an equally impossible "history". Please kill and block as soon as possible -- I know I'm not an active member of USRD anymore, and perhaps it's procedure, but I don't see why this needs discussion at all. Xenon54 (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, forgive me for using Google Maps, but I did, and where these streets run in close proximity to make the supposed exit list viable is several miles north of Birmingham, between the towns of Gardendale and Morris. So either this is a complete hoax, or so factually inaccurate that it is impossible to confirm that if any detail is correct. Dave (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- For now I have left a warning template on this user's talk page. However, judging from other comments left on the talk page, this is nothing new. I have to leave, but will finish an investigation when I return. If another admin beats me to it, go right ahead. Dave (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Articles listed at AFD
- List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida (AfD discussion)
- County Road 2002 (Florida) (AfD discussion)
Please contribute to the discussions. Uncle G (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
BC 395 / US 395 Merger Proposal
See Talk:U.S. Route 395#BC 395 Merger --Admrboltz (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Kansas merge proposals
See Talk:Kansas Turnpike for merge proposals of merging Kansas Turnpike Authority and Interstate 335 into the Kansas Turnpike article. Dough4872 01:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Merger discussion: Talk:Indian River Lagoon Scenic Highway#Merger --Admrboltz (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
FL CR AFD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 158 (Leon County, Florida) - should we keep doing this since these now show up at WP:USRD/AA? --Admrboltz (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Merger discussion: Talk:U.S. Route 27#Apalachee Parkway merger --Admrboltz (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 441#Merger --Admrboltz (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Article Alerts bug
See WP:AAlerts/BUGS#Pluses instead of underscores --Admrboltz (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
City/Counties
Do templates, such as {{jctexit}} or {{jctint}} support consolidated city/counties such as Denver? If so, how do you code it? --Admrboltz (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
{{{indep_city}}}
=<city name> – TMF 06:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)- Not quite, but I got it. See Peña Boulevard. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
VA merge proposal
See Talk:U.S. Route 29 in Virginia#Merge proposal. Dough4872 16:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Merge proposal
See discussion here.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 23:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
NC merger
Independence Boulevard (Charlotte) → U.S. Route 74#North Carolina, see Talk:U.S. Route 74#Independence Boulevard (Charlotte) merger --Admrboltz (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
FL merge
See: Talk:Interstate 4#SR 400 merger re Florida State Road 400 → Interstate 4. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I-8 merge proposal
See Talk:Interstate 8#Merge proposal. Dough4872 05:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Stub goals for 2011
While nominally, our stub reduction drive didn't come anywhere close to our goal of eliminating 3000 stubs, I think most of us feel it was a success. Am I alone on this? While there is still some time left in December, I thought we should start hammering out our goals for 2011. I'm going to ask a few questions to try to get a good idea where the project stands. Just write a short comment after each question. By no means is this a binding poll. This will all end up in the next edition of the newsletter? If there are any other questions I should be asking, please add them! –Fredddie™ 07:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do you think the stub reduction drive was a success?
- Yes, I do. Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, even though we didn't make the goal. --Rschen7754 09:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. I didn't participate in it, but the states and editors that did made large gains in reducing (even eliminating) their stub count. – TMF 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely. We got compliments for the hard work, I'd say its a success!Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 16:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. VC 18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, we have seen a lot of improvements in articles, including the complete destubbing of several states. Dough4872 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes since we did improve article quality and activity rose. –CGTalk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Even though the goal was not attained, great strides were taken to reduce the number of stubs. -- LJ ↗ 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that it was a complete success. For the first quarter of so of the year we made great progress towards reaching the goal, but we ended up getting distracted by other things around the summertime (template overhauls and things like that) which ended up pushing the stub drive to the back burner and then we simply lost the momentum that got built. The key is to be able to achieve obvious progress, which motivates people to keep the trend going. If you neglect the goal for a while, then momentum is lost and it's hard to motivate people again. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure how many stubs we got rid of, but from where I stand, I don't think it was a success either. What bugs me about this stub elimination campaign is that there have been a lot of articles that would have been better off being redirected, or even left alone, but instead were completley deleted. ----DanTD (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely. I think a lot of progress has happened. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- To me, it was a definite success. We raised awareness of the stub problem plaguing Wikipedia in general, and we increased activity. It also helped to redefined standards and better organize the project, subprojects, and task forces in general. And roughly half of the goal was met, which is actually pretty impressive from where I stand. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Did we set the goal too high?
- I don't know that it was too high. I think in the end it turned out to be unrealistic, but it's good to aim high and take satisfaction in a realistic, but maybe lower, result. Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose. --Rschen7754 09:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. If I had to guess, I'd say that the project eliminated about 2,000 pre-existing stubs before the new stubs - new articles and articles downgraded to stubs in audits - are factored in. – TMF 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Imzadi said it best. I think we set a goal and tried our hardest to meet it. We didn't make it, means we just try for a similar goal.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 16:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- If the goal was set as a mark to surpass, then it was too ambitious. Given our lives outside of Wikipedia, all things that could go wrong in our motivation here, and our aversion to leaving our geographic comfort zones, it was not realistic. If the goal was set as a mark to shoot for assuming good conditions, then it was good. After all, we are all volunteers and there are no negative consequences if we miss the goal. VC 18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think the target was a little too high based on number of active editors. Dough4872 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- It was a bit too high. The same goal could have been used for an extended one into spring 2011 realistically. –CGTalk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it was high in retrospect, but I don't think there was any way that could have been known a year ago. -- LJ ↗ 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- That depends on your perspective. If you're writing for states that already had a high quality of articles or a low number of highways overall with several experienced editors contributing, then the goal of eliminating stubs was a complete success. However, other states have seen only modest gains. In TX, it seems to be one step back for every two steps forward. We've had a couple of new editors this year that were prolific at creating new stub articles rather than upgrading existing ones. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- It was a bit high, I believe. Too many variables involved (new stubs, lack of resources for certain states) to effectively destub. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- How high should we have set the goal? 1500? 2000?
- I think 2000 would have been more reasonable, and that could have been attainable. Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- 2,000 per my comments in the section above. – TMF 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- 2250 to me sounds a bit averaged out and I like it.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 16:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- 2000 would have been a more realistic goal. As TMF pointed out, without the audit, we would have come close to a goal of that magnitude. VC 18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think 2000 sounds like a more realistic goal. Dough4872 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- 2000 is much more realistic. –CGTalk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Had we done 1500, we probably would have met the goal. 2000 may have been more reasonable and still attainable, however, that still would have been less than the "half the current stub count" goal that was the initial purpose of the drive. -- LJ ↗ 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think 2000 would be realistic without large audits or other concerns diverting attention. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- 2000 is more realistic, yes. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- How did you help reduce the stub count?
- I helped suggest logical places to merge stubby items into lists, some of which might have been permastubs. I did some work on territorial highway articles. When the three AS articles were created, I merged them into the list, RSC-style to get rid of them as stubs. I merged VI spurs to parent articles for additional stub reductions. I was also helping expand articles in Guam from creation directly to Start-Class to avoid redlinks turning into stubs. Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- 2010 wasn't a great editing year for me, due to my wikibreak in the spring, my job in the summer, and lots of stress school- and emotional-related in the fall. I wasn't able to do as much as I wanted to in this area. That being said, I caused the demise of WP:CACR and that got rid of a lot of stubs. I also removed several stubs from the California project. --Rschen7754 09:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- As I commented above, I really didn't. Most of the existing stubs in New York are well outside my areas of interest. When they did lie within my areas of interest, I either expanded or merged them as appropriate. – TMF 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- My problems echo Rschen's. Editing Wikipedia at all in 2010 was a pest due to college. I usually just helped people reduce them by persuasion. Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 16:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I participated in the near-complete destubbing of Maryland. I also killed a few stubs in other states. VC 18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I completely destubbed DE and NE in addiition to reducing the stub count in other states such as MD, MS, NJ, and PA. Dough4872 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I destubbed a few articles and sent them to GAN. –CGTalk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Earlier in the year, I addressed NVSR articles by merging or redirecting where feasible, then moved to expanding stubs up to C-class where possible. I wasn't as active in the stub drive in the latter half of the year as I would have liked to have been--a new job and a return to grad school took up a lot of time that had previously been spent editing. -- LJ ↗ 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've tried to advocate more redirects, and new lists wherever I felt they'd be appropriate. With my redirects of articles like County Route 9 (Suffolk County, New York) and County Route 10 (Suffolk County, New York) into Rockland County, New York-style lists, I'd have to say my efforts haven't been a total loss. However, I'm still working on other partial lists for some(Not all) Suffolk County Road articles to be redirected to. -----DanTD (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I expanded several articles to get them beyond stub status, and created a few lists such as for business routes. I also preemptively redirected some historic routes to the history sections of current routes. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I, along with Dough, took out most of the Maryland stubs in April–May, raising them to C-class (me simple route descriptions, he junction lists). After that, I tried my hand at North Carolina and Rhode Island, which was a... pretty miserable endeavor due to the lack of sources thing. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Where are the best opportunities to reduce stubs?
- The absolute best opportunity are the lists of redlinks. If we do things right, we can turn the links blue and have Start-Class or higher articles from the beginning. To reduce the current numbers, we have various states that each have a high proportion of the current total. The problem is that we each specialize in our various states so much, that it initially hinders an editor from making a drive in an unfamiliar state. To combat that, we need to find resources for junctions lists for states. (A junction list plus an RD, even a Rand McNally atlas or Google/Yahoo/Bing Maps generated RD, equals not a stub anymore.) Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Merging articles, writing route descriptions and junction list combinations, removing articles that aren't in our scope.... --Rschen7754 20:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Aside from what's already been said, there's also the presence of many non-notable road articles (read: county routes) in Florida and downstate New York, many of which are stubs. Many of these routes - not just the stubs - should be merged into by-county route lists, which would have the added bonus of helping to reduce the stub count. – TMF 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I still have to disagree with TMF. I don't believe that all County Road articles are non-notable. ----DanTD (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- There's no sense in beating this dead horse any more than it already has been. This has been discussed at length in many locations, and from those discussions it's fairly clear that I'm not the only one with the mindset that I posted above. (As an aside that's somewhat relevant to this discussion in a couple of ways, Suffolk County is statistically the worst county in New York - the average article in Suffolk is nearly a class and a half worse than the statewide average. The poor condition of the boatload of county route articles has a lot to do with it.) – TMF 20:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Let me reiterate my agreement with TMF on this issue. I only consider county roads to be notable if they are part of a state-wide numbering system set apart from other county roads in the state, individually have a significant historical component on their own or some other individual significance. Most of your Suffolk County articles don't meet either of those three criteria, and so I label them non-notable. Imzadi 1979 → 01:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- The trouble with you and others who share your view, is that you live on some false impression that all county roads are nothing but poorly paved-over cow paths that are only used by a few local farmers on their tractors. Many of them are in fact major highways, and yes even limited-access highways. Even after I explained why some should be kept, you dismissed it simply because they are County Roads. If anything, most of the efforts to delete county road articles are nothing but an Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT crusade. Now, I see there are even attempts to delete LISTS of County Roads. ----DanTD (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- If I thought all CRs were non-notable, then why would I have helped form a taskforce devoted to the County-Designated Highway System in Michigan? Why would I have created County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan)? My opinion might be colored by the fact that in Michigan, if the roadway isn't maintained by the state or a city, it is a county road. On one count, my home county had over a thousand county roads, ranging from former state highways (CR 492=old M-28, CR 510=old M-35, Heritage Drive/CR JAD = old US 41/M-28) to the Rod & Gun Club Road (CR JAR) that's a less than a quarter mile and dead-ends into the club's parking lot. Clearly, there needs to be some minimum standard of what's "notable" about a county road to warrant an article. Just having a number is not it. History or some state-wide significance works for me though.
I don't advocate the deletion of that list. That was nominated from someone from outside the project that claimed that "roads are not notable", which didn't make any distinction between state highways or county roads. I did nominate county road that on its face does not deserve an article. Imzadi 1979 → 07:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- If I thought all CRs were non-notable, then why would I have helped form a taskforce devoted to the County-Designated Highway System in Michigan? Why would I have created County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan)? My opinion might be colored by the fact that in Michigan, if the roadway isn't maintained by the state or a city, it is a county road. On one count, my home county had over a thousand county roads, ranging from former state highways (CR 492=old M-28, CR 510=old M-35, Heritage Drive/CR JAD = old US 41/M-28) to the Rod & Gun Club Road (CR JAR) that's a less than a quarter mile and dead-ends into the club's parking lot. Clearly, there needs to be some minimum standard of what's "notable" about a county road to warrant an article. Just having a number is not it. History or some state-wide significance works for me though.
- The trouble with you and others who share your view, is that you live on some false impression that all county roads are nothing but poorly paved-over cow paths that are only used by a few local farmers on their tractors. Many of them are in fact major highways, and yes even limited-access highways. Even after I explained why some should be kept, you dismissed it simply because they are County Roads. If anything, most of the efforts to delete county road articles are nothing but an Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT crusade. Now, I see there are even attempts to delete LISTS of County Roads. ----DanTD (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- I still have to disagree with TMF. I don't believe that all County Road articles are non-notable. ----DanTD (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Targeting the 4 states with 300 or more stubs (and rest with 150 or more) and targeting states like North Carolina and Kentucky who have red links everywhere. Now I do believe Pennsylvania needs the most effort due to lack of an editor base.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 16:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- The more stubs we can remove administratively (i.e., without article writing work) by moving the information to RCS lists or removing the articles from our scope, the better. We also need to move out of our comfort zones by (a) working on states outside of our own and (b) making a better effort to teach less experienced editors how to kill stubs so we have more hands at work. VC 18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- The best ways to reduce stubs are to add route descriptions and junction lists to articles as well as merging CRs into lists. Dough4872 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Adding RDs are the easy way, especially for shorter routes. Longer ones, however, could use a nice history instead or both. –CGTalk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- We attacked the best stub-reduction opportunities immediately: merging short, perma-stubs into parent articles or RCS-style lists. Continuing this consolidation wherever feasible is the easiest way to eliminate stubs. However, the more realistic opportunities now are to work on slight expansion (adding a brief route description and junction list) and examining notability of routes (i.e. county routes). -- LJ ↗ 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think we should try recruitment. We could go outside the project to individual state projects, many of which have vastly more editors than ours, and post messages inviting any that have an interest in roads and travel if they would like to contribute while linking to the projects' page, state subproject's page, and article standard's page. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Aside from what was already said about county routes, we could definitely reduce stubs by merging several articles, namely short state-specific US and Interstate articles. Some suffixed routes which carry the same number (routes like MD 920) should also be merged into list articles if each suffixed route is currently its own article, but a really short road with low significance. And I doubt I should say this, but... adding route descriptions and junction lists should be easy for almost all articles with just map data, and have it stand in until official state sources become available. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Should we create incentives to reduce stubs? If so, what kind of incentives?
- The easiest would be a USRD stub-reducing barnstar. Editors could award it by their own discretion to those they feel merit recognition for their efforts. The only thing else I could imagine doing is tracking who de-stubs what and awarding prizes based on X number of stubs removed from the count by each person. (I would count creating blue links as anything other than a stub as a "pre-emptive de-stubbing". That would include creating items in lists with redirects or creating the article at Start-Class or higher from the beginning. PRODs/AfDs would also count as a method for de-stubbing.) Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- If someone can come up with something truly creative, sure. I'm not that creative, though. – TMF 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the stub drive we came up with is a good incentive with a few tweaks. Dough4872 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Barnstar is a great idea, Imzadi. –CGTalk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- The barnstar idea is a good one. Another might be recognition on either the project's page or newsletter. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Barnstar idea is very good. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- What should our goal be for 2011?
- I'd like to see a two-part goal for 2011. We should further reduce the stub count another 30-40% off the total at the start of the year. The second part would be to reduce the number of Start-Class articles by expanding them to C-Class or better. Since a lot of the Stubs will likely become Starts, I would suggest that overall we aim to reduce this count by only 10-20%. This will augment some of the 2010 efforts which should have increased the project's Start count as a consequence of decreasing the Stub count. Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say finishing our 2010 goal - we're almost at 50%, if we push we could do all 3000. The Start-Class goal mentioned above sounds promising, but I don't know if 20% is doable. --Rschen7754 09:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say give the Stub-Class elimination another go at 2K. Until the majority of the C-Class and lower articles are Start-Class, I wouldn't worry about the Start-Class count that much. – TMF 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I like 2000 as a goal for 2011. We have a much better understanding of what we need to do so I think it is a highly realistic number, more so than it would have been last year. I disagree with a Start-class goal because de-Starting articles requires history resources, which are often much more imposing than resources to add a Route description and Junction list. I think each of us should formally adopt a state in which to do destubbing work in which we set a goal to kill one stub a day, five stubs a week, or some other realistic personal goal. Finally, we should continue to try to find resources for those states that now appear to lack them and teach new editors how to de-stub. VC 18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, call for a reduction of 2000 stubs. Dough4872 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- To set the same goal, but move the deadline slightly earlier. –CGTalk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- For the first time I can remember since joining the project about three years ago, the wikiwork table shows that the average USRD article is just above start-class. I feel a large part of that has to do with this stub drive. So I think continuing to reach the original 2010 goal should be a priority. When expanding stubs, we should aim to bring them up to C-class or better, that way there is less to worry about once the stubs are gone and work begins on start-class articles. -- LJ ↗ 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- More county road lists, to redirect county road articles to. ----DanTD (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think stub reduction, for most of us, should remain the focus; however, those who write for states that have already been destubbed should work on improving start-class articles. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I like the 2011 idea. It's roughly half of what's left, but only slightly more than the remainder of the previous goal. So I don't think it's impossible, and I think it'll be fruitful. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Re: Start-Class reduction
- To clarify my Start-Class reduction goal, based on the current numbers, a 10% reduction would be the upgrading of 271 articles, plus one in every ten stubs that's expanded into a Start-Class article. Assuming we aim and reach another 2000 stubs removed only through expansion, that's a grand total of 471 additional article expansions. If Maryland alone were to de-start in 2011, that would mean the expansion of 163 articles. New York currently has 131 Starts. California has another 124. That's not assuming that some of the Start-Class count is not removed through the same administrative methods as the Stub-Class count (merger, deletion, removing USRD tags for falling outside project scope). Double the numbers above for a 20% reduction. Imzadi 1979 → 20:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I do not think we should include de-starting in this campaign because (a) the emphasis should be solely on stubs; (b) there is a different mentality involved in expanding articles start to C versus stub to start; and (c) the start goal above is something that does not need a dedicated drive. The three examples you give (MD, NY, and CA) have dedicated editors for whom de-starting their own state is plausible and likely a personal goal. I certainly know I want to de-start Maryland in the coming year. I do not need any additional incentive to do that; the reward of closing out something locally is far greater than meeting a national goal that is likely to be hit regardless of whether it is set. I do not think people are going to be ready to take on a de-start campaign outside of their comfort zones until their comfort zones are de-started. VC 21:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think a start-class reduction may help for editors interested in improving articles in states currently with no stubs, such as DE and NE. I know the former has good history resources which could help get articles to B-class, and DE can realistically be destarted as there are relatively few articles. Dough4872 23:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- The case for this is relative to the state subproject. Some DOTs, such as in TX, provide many mapping and history tools, and articles in these states are easily upgraded from stub to C-class or higher. There really isn't any reason to have stub or start articles in these states except that they were either written by fly-by-night editors or they are older articles predating our current standards. Other DOTs, such as NM, provide little or no historic info and no detailed local mapping. The only resources for these states is often less than authoritative websites with broad, general descriptions such as "built during the 1950s". I don't live there, so going to a library is not really an option. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Proposal
Let's make this formal. There were two options that stuck out for a 2011 stub-removing goal – finish the original 3000 and a new goal of 2000. Which would you prefer? Just sign below. –Fredddie™ 21:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think the consensus is overwhelming. The only decision left is to decide between the even 2000 or the gimmick 2011. VC 21:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Gimmicks are Good: +1 for 2011. – TMF 06:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I say stick with an even 2000. Dough4872 01:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I like VC's title for the gimmick... which means I could put together a different poster for the project page, so 2011 it is. Imzadi 1979 → 01:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Finish the original 3000
New goal of 2000 from January 1
- – TMF 00:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Admrboltz (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Add 11 more and you get a deal.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 00:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- We should start from scratch with a new goal. Dough4872 02:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Fortguy (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Rschen7754 03:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Would this be a goal of 2000 stubs from this day forward, or 2000 total including the original stub drive? -- LJ ↗ 10:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll support either 2000 or 2011 stubs as a goal. Imzadi 1979 → 10:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- 2011: A De-Stubbing Odyssey VC 18:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- 2011. Mostly because that poster is awesome. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
MOS:RJL question
See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (road junction lists)#Dashes and or emphasis in RJL --Admrboltz (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposed demotion of OR, GA, RI projects
See WT:USRD/SUB. --Rschen7754 22:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)