![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Hey, I'm proposing three things:
Please comment. -- Son ( talk) 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[Indent reset] There's no need for an infobox subpage; all that needs to be on the USRD project page is here's the template. Documenation is located there on how to use it. So use it on US roads.
On a side note, Infobox road is not a worldwide standard... WP:UKRD doesn't use Infobox road. USRD doesn't even have a project-wide standard. Again, worldwide standard is not a concern of the US Roads WikiProject. Worldwide standards should be taken to WT:HWY. -- Son ( talk) 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Since this isn't gaining traction, here's a new proposal:
Please comment. -- Son ( talk) 21:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
(Margin reset) Okay, so that being the case, the same infobox duplicated as "infobox US road" WOULD be an unnecessary redundancy. So, we remove the layer under USRD, moving it UP to the main USRD page, abbreviate it to read that, as a Wikiproject, this is the box that we use, why we use it, and how to apply it. This sounds good. Edit Centric ( talk) 21:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to delete it; do you mean merge it into WP:USRD? -- NE2 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
County Route E2 (California) -- NE2 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This was sort of suggested by Newyorkbrad at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/1/2). How about, for the states with projects that wish to discard roads that are not currently state highways, having a new parameter, like state=OK|system=SH, and categorize these not only in Oklahoma road transport but also Oklahoma state highway articles. If the system=SH is not present, it only uses the former category. I haven't thought through all the details, but it might work. -- NE2 04:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
So, to clarify, what you're suggesting is have a road transport category for any kind of roads be it streets, highways, and so on, and then have a state highway category for county, state, US and Interstate numbered highways? I like the idea, but I don't find it very practical. Which cats would the 1.0 editorial bot check through? On the USRD assessment page, would we have two tables, one for the state highways cat and one for the road transport cat? And, if that's the case, why not just split the non-SH cat articles into it's own project? -- Son ( talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not just have an assess=no parameter to keep the article out of the state assessment cats? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of bureaucracy, but I'm going to ask anyway: does something have to go through A-class review to be promoted, or can it just be promoted like [1] and if anyone disagrees they'll demote it? -- NE2 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason we have an A-class review is to make sure that before a GA goes to FAC, it has been thoroughly reviewed. We keep sending road articles to FA and having them creamed; this eliminates some of that (hopefully). -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the general feeling about disambigs on articles such as Virginia State Route 7, where the disambig at the top of the page links to another current article? I don't feel they're useful and detract from the overall quality of the article. WP:DAB says that for DAB links, "at the top of an article, a note that links the reader to articles with similar titles or concepts that the reader may have been seeking instead of the article in which the links appear." I just don't think that the former routes (at least in Virginia) satisfy the criteria, and would be better off under the "See also" section. The last time I attempted to be bold it was reverted. Comments on this issue? How do other states handle it? -- MPD T / C 03:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Just this evening, I went and compared a few different articles on State Routes in Cali, and noticed the following potential for improvement; there seems to be no consensus ever reached on overall structure. For instance, the "State Law" section of each California State Route article. On some, it resides towards the bottom of the page. On others, it's been placed higher up. (Please see CA SR 1 and SR 99 for the differences.
In the interest of uniformity across the project, at least WP:CASH, what I'm proposing is this; A discussion to reach consensus on the article's section layout, or simply put, "what goes where". Edit Centric ( talk) 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
(MARGIN RESET) Hmm. I think you've all missed the point that I was trying to make. This discussion skewed and got hung up on the ONE SECTION, what I was proposing was a much broader brush-stroke, in discussing overall article layout, and specifying a mapping out of the sections (ie: First goes the infobox, then the description, then the history, then the exit list, yada yada yada.) Let's wait until the ArbCom case is over though, as that seems to be where most heads are at right now, and I don't blame anyone for that. All the revert warring, bypassing consensus, nose-thumbing and such is starting to get a little old... Edit Centric ( talk) 07:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please add
to the "Historic maps and routings" section. Thank you. -- NE2 09:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is this page protected?
Anyways, I was going to remove the "Articles" section on WP:USRD because if I wanted a portal, I'd go to P:USRD. Or I would only keep the links to the categories for each class. — Rob ( talk) 19:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed NE2 merged New Mexico State Road 333 into U.S. Route 66 in New Mexico. I understand why he did this, being essentially the same road and all, but I think that we should put more emphasis on the current route, considering U.S. 66 has been decommissioned. (He once attempted merging Oklahoma State Highway 66 into the respective U.S. 66 article but we managed to resolve that.) NM-333 has termini different from that of U.S. 66 in NM and probably a little bit of history of its own as well. I'd like to know what others think about this merge. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 605 (Washington). -- Polaron | Talk 19:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This is just a list of every article that has a map, and doesn't seem useful. -- NE2 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#References for geographical features on the use of references for geographical information, for example with road descriptions. Comments would be appreciated. -- Para ( talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that WP:USRD is back in arbitration, I have decided to return to Wikipedia. That being said, I do not plan on participating in the arbitration case, since while I've had past dealings with NE2 (both positive and negative), I am blissfully unaware of what has gone on in my absense and what led directly to the case. Rather, while the rest of you folks participate in the arbitration case, I plan on picking up the pieces you've left behind. I will follow whatever guidelines have been determined with regards to junction lists and the like in my absense, and the last thing I want to do is reopen any sore wounds. In fact, the reason I have returned is to make sure old wounds stay closed, and to stop any more wounds from opening in the future.
I don't know how often I'll be on here, and due to various constraints I will not be on IRC, so I make no promises on what I will do or when I will do it. I just figured that you might like to know that I'm around keeping an eye on the proceedings. -- NORTH talk 09:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back, NORTH! Don't leave again! -- Son ( talk) 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose the creation of a subpage of USRD to list all our articles that made DYK. Any thoughts? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing the repromotion of the project at WT:USRD/SUB. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing the demotion of this project at WT:USRD/SUB. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure whether to take this to the Assessment subproject, or Peer review, plus I wanted it to reach a somewhat larger audience, so here it lies.
I'm somewhat disappointed that the article was passed as a Good Article during my absence. It was expanded, and deservedly so, but a lot of the concerns I raised when it was first nominated were never addressed. As my first action back, I've now belatedly addressed them.
Also, during the most recent nomination, the reviewer (not a member of USRD as far as I know) promoted the article to A-class. After I'd already started posting this message, I noticed that Mitchazenia demoted it back to B-class, then to GA-class once it passed. Nevertheless, I'd like to see it go through the proper assessment procedure by someone knowledgeable about our criteria (i.e. not me). Who knows, maybe it is A-class? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northenglish ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do comment at its talk page. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Parkway/Beaver Island Parkway -- NE2 21:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 4 (Monmouth County, New Jersey) -- Mitch 32 contribs 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we please find a way to do away with the major cities boxes? They prevent adding images to the route description section... like on U.S. Route 59, where I had to add the image very far down the page in a section it doesn't really fit well with. I think it's a problem.— Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been removing them as I include the information elsewhere, such as U.S. Route 1. In most cases, the major cities should be the junctions in the infobox. -- NE2 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks like most of the articles that have problems with this have individual state articles. Maybe that information could be removed from the general article, and moved to the more specific state articles, where the lists will be shorter. Either that or just eliminate the list completely. - Algorerhythms ( talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Let us remember that the cities box was created to eliminate a long section with a bunch of whitespace. However, this was made for Interstates so we could better organize the article information. For US routes, I'll support eliminating the box. For Interstate highways, I do not support such a removal. I pioneered that box for Interstates, not US routes. Adding "major cities" to the state-by-state (if the case may be) sections of the US routes makes more sense. -- MPD T / C 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
←Well, I mean, we can't just randomly start throwing out certain control cities because we don't feel they're important enough. If we decide we want to do away with control cities all together, that's a different matter. I support retaining control cities, because we have a citeable document where an external organization has blessed certain towns as Important. So the matter as to what's in, what's out is settled for us.
Major cities boxes on U.S. routes are another matter entirely, because there's no document we can use as our criteria for inclusion. We need to set a bar for how important must a city be to be included in the box. Unfortunately, a uniform bar may not work, because if you set it too low, very long routes may have huge boxes like U.S. 70. But if you set it high enough to be comfortable for U.S. 70, then shorter routes or those that run through sparser areas of the country like Utah or so may end up having no eligible cities at all. So then you end up getting rules like if the route is over x miles long you have major cities be over y population. And then that's just more bureaucratic rules that newbies will get wrong and bristle at memorizing, and may even prove unwieldy for regular editors. So that's why I feel we should ditch the box on U.S. routes and keep it on Interstates. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC) And don't say TLDR, or the cutout shield gets it, lol!
(ec) Somehow the lists on state routes were lost in this discussion, even though they're cut from the same cloth as the USH lists. I guess my only concern is that if a location wasn't mentioned in the list, it wouldn't be mentioned anywhere. So I suppose it would be redundant if everything was covered in the route description and the most major of the locations had infobox junctions; this applies to both state routes and USH. Keep in mind that the sole reason they exist (from what I understand) is purely historical; they replaced sections that were devoted to lists. (I think this is still an issue in some states like Tennessee, so to me this discussion should have some bearing on these sections - but we'll kill one bird with one stone first.) However, I believe that the IH lists are better off kept for the control cities, which have to meet a specific criteria (the FHWA list) to be included. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
(IR) Copyrighted eh? I hate it when that happens :P It will work - a newer version would be grand for sure. If it can't be copied, we'll have to do the best we can — master son T - C 15:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, time to get back on track. We have three issues: 1) Shall we throw out control cities? 2) Shall we throw out major cities boxes on U.S. routes or find a way to restrict them? 3) What about state routes? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment presently transcludes the standard assessment table, which allows missing elements in a B-class article. It's been my understanding and that of others that a missing or incomplete section automatically makes it start or stub. We need to decide how we're going to reconcile this. I'm not sure about others, but I think it's useful to have a class that shows that articles are basically complete except for possibly more details, without having to use a slow process like GA. It might also work if we added a parameter to the infobox that would categorize U.S. road GA candidates together so we can get them through faster, though we'd have to ensure that we apply the criteria fairly. What are others' thoughts? -- NE2 03:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I'm proposing that we adopt "clarifying language" on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment that explains how complete B-class needs to be. We just need to agree on this; I'm in favor of specifying that it must have a complete route description, touch on all important aspects of the history (for instance when it became a state highway, when it was opened if it wasn't an existing road, etc.), and have a complete junction list or equivalent if applicable. Either that or streamlining the GA process for USRD articles; I haven't been listing much there because it takes so long. -- NE2 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I ran a test, and, as I suspected, "Bplus" is not recognized by the bot. WP Math does it by putting them in both the B+ and GA categories (see for instance Talk:Ackermann function); I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Different assessment definitions if this is how it is supposed to be. -- NE2 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Please indicate what you support below. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
So are people actually going to go through all the B-class articles and assess them for B+? -- NE2 23:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) As suggested, I reviewed (and failed) three GA nominations. Now come the angry messages... -- NE2 01:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the assessment definitions need to be clarified. I would have to disagree, however, on how stubs would be missing two or more sections. A stub, in my view, would be an article with only one section of readable prose. Start would have sections of readable prose, but be widely incomplete, i.e. have a decent route description and incomplete history, or vice versa. B would be an essentially complete article of readable prose, and have an exit/junction list following. The aforementioned classes could be fairly disorganised; GA (and maybe B) starts to organise the article. This is my rant for now. 哦, 是吗?( O-person) 23:55, 17 January 2008 (GMT)
Does anyone object to my repromoting the articles that NE2 demoted to start a few days ago? I am expanding California State Route 15, so that issue should be moot. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I still don't think we should even have a B+ class. I don't think it's useful, and it's nonstandard, so all around I abhor the idea. Nobody has ever had a problem with the standard classes before. Let's just close this discussion as WORKSFORME/ WONTFIX. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to add my $0.02 so late, but I'm just not around that often, and discussion moves too quickly without me. The joys of being blissfully unaware I tell you!
Anyhew, basically I agree with all of the above, including both NE2 and Rschen to the extent that it's possible. As I implied (but probably didn't actually say) above when I was talking about NJ 18, and as I had said several times pre-retirement, assessment standards are incredibly vague, and should probably be fixed. I think the easy way to do this is to have a clearly defined -- objective rather than subjective -- guideline as to what constitutes B-class. IMHO, the way to go is to say that it must have the big 3 -- Route description, History, and a junction list. Obviously M-185 would be an exception to the junction list rule, and I don't think it would be such a bad idea to exclude routes that only have junctions at termini from that rule as well.
As for completeness of those sections, I think that is what separates a B-class article from a Good Article, A-class, etc. I think as long as a section isn't a one-sentence stub (or the nonsensical History section on Washington State Route 92), as long as all three exist, it counts as B-class.
As for B+ class, I vote no. I think even with the system I proposed above, B-class works fine as Good Article purgatory. For some articles, like TMF said in his most recent comment above, B-class will be just that, purgatory, which is totally fine. And if editors have a problem with the Good Article process, I personally don't have a problem with them bypassing it and taking it to our A-class review instead. As far as I know, while it would make sense, there's no actual rule that says Featured Article candidates have to already be Good Articles. -- NORTH talk 17:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing the renovation of this template. My thoughts are to reduce the font size of the template and to remove the hide / show features. However, only the headings that actually have content will show. After this, the West and East templates would no longer be necessary. Are there any objections? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose starting a collection of USRD essays - just advice from some editors of the project. In no way would these be official or anything. It would be similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays. Any thoughts? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:USRD/E started. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
commons:Category talk:Road signs in the United States#Roads/Road signs — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
To all USRD and state highway project editors,
I am aware that there has been much stress at USRD lately due to the arbitration. Many users have shown signs of stress and have contemplated or have left USRD.
I am asking that we try to hold USRD together. Not the project, but the community of users that edit the road articles. I am aware that there are many differences and bad feelings over the events that have taken place before this arbitration. I am asking that we temporarily put these aside and try to keep each other in the project.
These are dark days for USRD, even worse than those of the first arbitration and of SRNC. However, I am confident that if we all stay together as a community that there will be brighter days for USRD.
Some concerns of a few editors have been noted and are being discussed. I hope to propose changes to resolve some of the issues that some of these editors have brought up. However, the arbitration needs to be closed first. We thought that this arbitration would be a much simpler and less stressful process than it turned out to be. Unfortunately, it is very complex and very stressful.
If you need to, please take a break. We value all our editors and do not wish to see them leave.
So in summary, let's work to maintain as best of an environment as we can at USRD while the case is going on.
Not on behalf of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 26 -- NE2 08:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
While searching again for an authority for the control cities list, I came upon this page at the NC DOT website: http://www.ncdot.org/doh/PRECONSTRUCT/traffic/teppl/Topics/C-26/C-26.html. It states that NC DOT relies on Paul Wolf's control cities list. If a state government agency is saying the list can be relied on, I'd say it's reliable for Wikipedia purposes.
I'm going to go ahead and reference to the list directly, with a secondary "as referenced by" notation, to fully establish its credentials:
Make sense? — C.Fred ( talk) 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Hey, I'm proposing three things:
Please comment. -- Son ( talk) 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[Indent reset] There's no need for an infobox subpage; all that needs to be on the USRD project page is here's the template. Documenation is located there on how to use it. So use it on US roads.
On a side note, Infobox road is not a worldwide standard... WP:UKRD doesn't use Infobox road. USRD doesn't even have a project-wide standard. Again, worldwide standard is not a concern of the US Roads WikiProject. Worldwide standards should be taken to WT:HWY. -- Son ( talk) 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Since this isn't gaining traction, here's a new proposal:
Please comment. -- Son ( talk) 21:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
(Margin reset) Okay, so that being the case, the same infobox duplicated as "infobox US road" WOULD be an unnecessary redundancy. So, we remove the layer under USRD, moving it UP to the main USRD page, abbreviate it to read that, as a Wikiproject, this is the box that we use, why we use it, and how to apply it. This sounds good. Edit Centric ( talk) 21:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to delete it; do you mean merge it into WP:USRD? -- NE2 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
County Route E2 (California) -- NE2 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This was sort of suggested by Newyorkbrad at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/1/2). How about, for the states with projects that wish to discard roads that are not currently state highways, having a new parameter, like state=OK|system=SH, and categorize these not only in Oklahoma road transport but also Oklahoma state highway articles. If the system=SH is not present, it only uses the former category. I haven't thought through all the details, but it might work. -- NE2 04:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
So, to clarify, what you're suggesting is have a road transport category for any kind of roads be it streets, highways, and so on, and then have a state highway category for county, state, US and Interstate numbered highways? I like the idea, but I don't find it very practical. Which cats would the 1.0 editorial bot check through? On the USRD assessment page, would we have two tables, one for the state highways cat and one for the road transport cat? And, if that's the case, why not just split the non-SH cat articles into it's own project? -- Son ( talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not just have an assess=no parameter to keep the article out of the state assessment cats? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of bureaucracy, but I'm going to ask anyway: does something have to go through A-class review to be promoted, or can it just be promoted like [1] and if anyone disagrees they'll demote it? -- NE2 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason we have an A-class review is to make sure that before a GA goes to FAC, it has been thoroughly reviewed. We keep sending road articles to FA and having them creamed; this eliminates some of that (hopefully). -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the general feeling about disambigs on articles such as Virginia State Route 7, where the disambig at the top of the page links to another current article? I don't feel they're useful and detract from the overall quality of the article. WP:DAB says that for DAB links, "at the top of an article, a note that links the reader to articles with similar titles or concepts that the reader may have been seeking instead of the article in which the links appear." I just don't think that the former routes (at least in Virginia) satisfy the criteria, and would be better off under the "See also" section. The last time I attempted to be bold it was reverted. Comments on this issue? How do other states handle it? -- MPD T / C 03:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Just this evening, I went and compared a few different articles on State Routes in Cali, and noticed the following potential for improvement; there seems to be no consensus ever reached on overall structure. For instance, the "State Law" section of each California State Route article. On some, it resides towards the bottom of the page. On others, it's been placed higher up. (Please see CA SR 1 and SR 99 for the differences.
In the interest of uniformity across the project, at least WP:CASH, what I'm proposing is this; A discussion to reach consensus on the article's section layout, or simply put, "what goes where". Edit Centric ( talk) 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
(MARGIN RESET) Hmm. I think you've all missed the point that I was trying to make. This discussion skewed and got hung up on the ONE SECTION, what I was proposing was a much broader brush-stroke, in discussing overall article layout, and specifying a mapping out of the sections (ie: First goes the infobox, then the description, then the history, then the exit list, yada yada yada.) Let's wait until the ArbCom case is over though, as that seems to be where most heads are at right now, and I don't blame anyone for that. All the revert warring, bypassing consensus, nose-thumbing and such is starting to get a little old... Edit Centric ( talk) 07:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please add
to the "Historic maps and routings" section. Thank you. -- NE2 09:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is this page protected?
Anyways, I was going to remove the "Articles" section on WP:USRD because if I wanted a portal, I'd go to P:USRD. Or I would only keep the links to the categories for each class. — Rob ( talk) 19:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed NE2 merged New Mexico State Road 333 into U.S. Route 66 in New Mexico. I understand why he did this, being essentially the same road and all, but I think that we should put more emphasis on the current route, considering U.S. 66 has been decommissioned. (He once attempted merging Oklahoma State Highway 66 into the respective U.S. 66 article but we managed to resolve that.) NM-333 has termini different from that of U.S. 66 in NM and probably a little bit of history of its own as well. I'd like to know what others think about this merge. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 605 (Washington). -- Polaron | Talk 19:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This is just a list of every article that has a map, and doesn't seem useful. -- NE2 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#References for geographical features on the use of references for geographical information, for example with road descriptions. Comments would be appreciated. -- Para ( talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that WP:USRD is back in arbitration, I have decided to return to Wikipedia. That being said, I do not plan on participating in the arbitration case, since while I've had past dealings with NE2 (both positive and negative), I am blissfully unaware of what has gone on in my absense and what led directly to the case. Rather, while the rest of you folks participate in the arbitration case, I plan on picking up the pieces you've left behind. I will follow whatever guidelines have been determined with regards to junction lists and the like in my absense, and the last thing I want to do is reopen any sore wounds. In fact, the reason I have returned is to make sure old wounds stay closed, and to stop any more wounds from opening in the future.
I don't know how often I'll be on here, and due to various constraints I will not be on IRC, so I make no promises on what I will do or when I will do it. I just figured that you might like to know that I'm around keeping an eye on the proceedings. -- NORTH talk 09:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back, NORTH! Don't leave again! -- Son ( talk) 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose the creation of a subpage of USRD to list all our articles that made DYK. Any thoughts? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing the repromotion of the project at WT:USRD/SUB. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing the demotion of this project at WT:USRD/SUB. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure whether to take this to the Assessment subproject, or Peer review, plus I wanted it to reach a somewhat larger audience, so here it lies.
I'm somewhat disappointed that the article was passed as a Good Article during my absence. It was expanded, and deservedly so, but a lot of the concerns I raised when it was first nominated were never addressed. As my first action back, I've now belatedly addressed them.
Also, during the most recent nomination, the reviewer (not a member of USRD as far as I know) promoted the article to A-class. After I'd already started posting this message, I noticed that Mitchazenia demoted it back to B-class, then to GA-class once it passed. Nevertheless, I'd like to see it go through the proper assessment procedure by someone knowledgeable about our criteria (i.e. not me). Who knows, maybe it is A-class? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northenglish ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do comment at its talk page. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Parkway/Beaver Island Parkway -- NE2 21:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 4 (Monmouth County, New Jersey) -- Mitch 32 contribs 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we please find a way to do away with the major cities boxes? They prevent adding images to the route description section... like on U.S. Route 59, where I had to add the image very far down the page in a section it doesn't really fit well with. I think it's a problem.— Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been removing them as I include the information elsewhere, such as U.S. Route 1. In most cases, the major cities should be the junctions in the infobox. -- NE2 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks like most of the articles that have problems with this have individual state articles. Maybe that information could be removed from the general article, and moved to the more specific state articles, where the lists will be shorter. Either that or just eliminate the list completely. - Algorerhythms ( talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Let us remember that the cities box was created to eliminate a long section with a bunch of whitespace. However, this was made for Interstates so we could better organize the article information. For US routes, I'll support eliminating the box. For Interstate highways, I do not support such a removal. I pioneered that box for Interstates, not US routes. Adding "major cities" to the state-by-state (if the case may be) sections of the US routes makes more sense. -- MPD T / C 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
←Well, I mean, we can't just randomly start throwing out certain control cities because we don't feel they're important enough. If we decide we want to do away with control cities all together, that's a different matter. I support retaining control cities, because we have a citeable document where an external organization has blessed certain towns as Important. So the matter as to what's in, what's out is settled for us.
Major cities boxes on U.S. routes are another matter entirely, because there's no document we can use as our criteria for inclusion. We need to set a bar for how important must a city be to be included in the box. Unfortunately, a uniform bar may not work, because if you set it too low, very long routes may have huge boxes like U.S. 70. But if you set it high enough to be comfortable for U.S. 70, then shorter routes or those that run through sparser areas of the country like Utah or so may end up having no eligible cities at all. So then you end up getting rules like if the route is over x miles long you have major cities be over y population. And then that's just more bureaucratic rules that newbies will get wrong and bristle at memorizing, and may even prove unwieldy for regular editors. So that's why I feel we should ditch the box on U.S. routes and keep it on Interstates. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC) And don't say TLDR, or the cutout shield gets it, lol!
(ec) Somehow the lists on state routes were lost in this discussion, even though they're cut from the same cloth as the USH lists. I guess my only concern is that if a location wasn't mentioned in the list, it wouldn't be mentioned anywhere. So I suppose it would be redundant if everything was covered in the route description and the most major of the locations had infobox junctions; this applies to both state routes and USH. Keep in mind that the sole reason they exist (from what I understand) is purely historical; they replaced sections that were devoted to lists. (I think this is still an issue in some states like Tennessee, so to me this discussion should have some bearing on these sections - but we'll kill one bird with one stone first.) However, I believe that the IH lists are better off kept for the control cities, which have to meet a specific criteria (the FHWA list) to be included. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
(IR) Copyrighted eh? I hate it when that happens :P It will work - a newer version would be grand for sure. If it can't be copied, we'll have to do the best we can — master son T - C 15:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, time to get back on track. We have three issues: 1) Shall we throw out control cities? 2) Shall we throw out major cities boxes on U.S. routes or find a way to restrict them? 3) What about state routes? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment presently transcludes the standard assessment table, which allows missing elements in a B-class article. It's been my understanding and that of others that a missing or incomplete section automatically makes it start or stub. We need to decide how we're going to reconcile this. I'm not sure about others, but I think it's useful to have a class that shows that articles are basically complete except for possibly more details, without having to use a slow process like GA. It might also work if we added a parameter to the infobox that would categorize U.S. road GA candidates together so we can get them through faster, though we'd have to ensure that we apply the criteria fairly. What are others' thoughts? -- NE2 03:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I'm proposing that we adopt "clarifying language" on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment that explains how complete B-class needs to be. We just need to agree on this; I'm in favor of specifying that it must have a complete route description, touch on all important aspects of the history (for instance when it became a state highway, when it was opened if it wasn't an existing road, etc.), and have a complete junction list or equivalent if applicable. Either that or streamlining the GA process for USRD articles; I haven't been listing much there because it takes so long. -- NE2 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I ran a test, and, as I suspected, "Bplus" is not recognized by the bot. WP Math does it by putting them in both the B+ and GA categories (see for instance Talk:Ackermann function); I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Different assessment definitions if this is how it is supposed to be. -- NE2 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Please indicate what you support below. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
So are people actually going to go through all the B-class articles and assess them for B+? -- NE2 23:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) As suggested, I reviewed (and failed) three GA nominations. Now come the angry messages... -- NE2 01:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the assessment definitions need to be clarified. I would have to disagree, however, on how stubs would be missing two or more sections. A stub, in my view, would be an article with only one section of readable prose. Start would have sections of readable prose, but be widely incomplete, i.e. have a decent route description and incomplete history, or vice versa. B would be an essentially complete article of readable prose, and have an exit/junction list following. The aforementioned classes could be fairly disorganised; GA (and maybe B) starts to organise the article. This is my rant for now. 哦, 是吗?( O-person) 23:55, 17 January 2008 (GMT)
Does anyone object to my repromoting the articles that NE2 demoted to start a few days ago? I am expanding California State Route 15, so that issue should be moot. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I still don't think we should even have a B+ class. I don't think it's useful, and it's nonstandard, so all around I abhor the idea. Nobody has ever had a problem with the standard classes before. Let's just close this discussion as WORKSFORME/ WONTFIX. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to add my $0.02 so late, but I'm just not around that often, and discussion moves too quickly without me. The joys of being blissfully unaware I tell you!
Anyhew, basically I agree with all of the above, including both NE2 and Rschen to the extent that it's possible. As I implied (but probably didn't actually say) above when I was talking about NJ 18, and as I had said several times pre-retirement, assessment standards are incredibly vague, and should probably be fixed. I think the easy way to do this is to have a clearly defined -- objective rather than subjective -- guideline as to what constitutes B-class. IMHO, the way to go is to say that it must have the big 3 -- Route description, History, and a junction list. Obviously M-185 would be an exception to the junction list rule, and I don't think it would be such a bad idea to exclude routes that only have junctions at termini from that rule as well.
As for completeness of those sections, I think that is what separates a B-class article from a Good Article, A-class, etc. I think as long as a section isn't a one-sentence stub (or the nonsensical History section on Washington State Route 92), as long as all three exist, it counts as B-class.
As for B+ class, I vote no. I think even with the system I proposed above, B-class works fine as Good Article purgatory. For some articles, like TMF said in his most recent comment above, B-class will be just that, purgatory, which is totally fine. And if editors have a problem with the Good Article process, I personally don't have a problem with them bypassing it and taking it to our A-class review instead. As far as I know, while it would make sense, there's no actual rule that says Featured Article candidates have to already be Good Articles. -- NORTH talk 17:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing the renovation of this template. My thoughts are to reduce the font size of the template and to remove the hide / show features. However, only the headings that actually have content will show. After this, the West and East templates would no longer be necessary. Are there any objections? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose starting a collection of USRD essays - just advice from some editors of the project. In no way would these be official or anything. It would be similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays. Any thoughts? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:USRD/E started. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
commons:Category talk:Road signs in the United States#Roads/Road signs — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
To all USRD and state highway project editors,
I am aware that there has been much stress at USRD lately due to the arbitration. Many users have shown signs of stress and have contemplated or have left USRD.
I am asking that we try to hold USRD together. Not the project, but the community of users that edit the road articles. I am aware that there are many differences and bad feelings over the events that have taken place before this arbitration. I am asking that we temporarily put these aside and try to keep each other in the project.
These are dark days for USRD, even worse than those of the first arbitration and of SRNC. However, I am confident that if we all stay together as a community that there will be brighter days for USRD.
Some concerns of a few editors have been noted and are being discussed. I hope to propose changes to resolve some of the issues that some of these editors have brought up. However, the arbitration needs to be closed first. We thought that this arbitration would be a much simpler and less stressful process than it turned out to be. Unfortunately, it is very complex and very stressful.
If you need to, please take a break. We value all our editors and do not wish to see them leave.
So in summary, let's work to maintain as best of an environment as we can at USRD while the case is going on.
Not on behalf of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 26 -- NE2 08:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
While searching again for an authority for the control cities list, I came upon this page at the NC DOT website: http://www.ncdot.org/doh/PRECONSTRUCT/traffic/teppl/Topics/C-26/C-26.html. It states that NC DOT relies on Paul Wolf's control cities list. If a state government agency is saying the list can be relied on, I'd say it's reliable for Wikipedia purposes.
I'm going to go ahead and reference to the list directly, with a secondary "as referenced by" notation, to fully establish its credentials:
Make sense? — C.Fred ( talk) 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)