This page 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.

I've come up with some suggestions at User:Rschen7754/Manifesto. I was wondering what people thought. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a good start, I have always been an advocate of giving the states more power. Item 12 should probably changed to a volunteer, rather than something that is assigned. -- Holderca1 ^talk 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is meant to be - sorry I didn't clarify. :) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a step in the right direction. Considering how much USRD has grown in the past couple of years (Maryland alone has gone from a small handful of articles to almost all routes at List of Maryland state highways having blue links!), it's time to split up much of the work and let the state projects handle it themselves. I agree with the point that USRD has changed over the past couple of years with more editors joining to work on individual states' projects, so this proposal can easily be a win-win. USRD will not have to worry about maintaining state-level projects and their articles, and individual state projects will be able to maintain themselves without unexpected interference from USRD. I also agree with the proposal to outsource some other tasks to Wikipedia-wide processes. To add to that I also think general style guidelines should be located at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (roads), with individual projects being allowed to supplement those guidelines with their own. -Jeff ^(talk) 19:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm not a very good administrator, which is why I refuse to become one on Wikipedia. So if it seems I'm ignoring WP:USRD, I kind of am - I understand the importance of WPs and I'll abide by the decisions made by consensus there, and make a few suggestions myself, but maintenance is tedious to me and I will forget. But I am best as a content contributor and doing research, so I will spend 80-90% of my Wikitime doing that.

Having said that, my primary thought is as long as it makes for a better reading encyclopedia, do it. It does seem that the "departments" section on the right of the main WP page grows every time I look at it, so I'd want to make sure those are actually being used to a profitable capacity. As long as we efficiently produce better articles over time with them, they can stay. — Rob ( talk) 20:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. My thoughts are to just try to hold the project together at this point until the end of arbitration, when we will probably have more discussions regarding this. (Remarkably most people I've talked to think it's a good idea...) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

From 8:

National editors are considered to be part of every state highway WikiProject; however, the "national editor" designation should not convey special privileges in state highway WP discussions.

Nobody has "special privileges" in discussions, whether they founded the project, work for the DOT, or have 12 featured articles in the project.

I don't understand what "editorial and managerial decisions relating to their own state" are. Would there be a USRD-wide manual of style or equivalent? I also object to the idea that a project with one or two active editors can make all the decisions about these issues, when they are part of the encyclopedia, not just a project. Can you give an example of something a project could decide? -- NE2 16:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Some examples I could think of that may vary across states are Importance ratings, order of article sections (some might prefer history first others route description first), variations in exit lists/junction lists (e.g. the use of "municipality" instead of "location" as column header, milepost precision), the addition of optional article section headers (e.g. state law sections and commemorative designations), which topics to have individual articles (e.g. maybe one state likes individual county route articles while another doesn't). Those are the only ones at the top of my head but I'm sure there are little things that are better customized for each state. -- Polaron | Talk 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

State law/commemorative designation sections is probably something that goes against Wikipedia-wide consensus for avoiding short sections or trivia. I would oppose any FA that had those unless it was a special case (maybe there was a court case about the law or something). -- NE2 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me toss in my $0.02 here. I've been mostly silent on the issues surrounding USRD, ArbCom, and all the rest of the WikiDrama. I've been content to contribute where I can to make the MI articles the best they can be, at this time. There are consensus processes in place to make decisions. There are state-level WikiProjects to implement format/content guidelines. WP:CASH has worked through their project guidelines. In them, the state law section is required for the assessment criteria. WP:MSHP doesn't have such a requirement because Michigan doesn't have trunkline definitions in a statute. MDOT uses mileposts on some freeways and even on one rural trunkline, but CalTrans uses postmiles. Each editorial decision was achieved through consensus unique to that state-level wikiproject. I wholly support the notion that each state's WP will work through the particulars of that state's highway articles. WP:USRD should exist to coordinate these efforts. If a question in MSHP comes up that CASH has had before, CASH's experience would be helpful to MSHP. USRD as a coordination project would benefit both through the newsletter and other projects.

Having said that, there are limits to WP:BOLD. Once consensus is developed, we have to abide by it until it is changed. The way to change consensus is opening a dialogue and stating a change. Not arbitrarily making huge changes across wide swaths of articles, altering templates without previous discussing and stubbornly refusing to accept something. Just calling something a WikiPedia-wide consensus doesn't work either. You need to find that consensus decision and bring it to the table. Also please note, consensus isn't a majority-wins vote. Instead, consensus is more like a nearly unanimous compromise. It's what the widest group of people present can agree to support at the time. Sometimes the "majority" has to water down their position to attract a wider support necessary for a true consensus. In the end, I agree with the Manifesto that the greater purpose of USRD is to facilitate the state-level projects. One project shouldn't be used to "override" another. Each and every WikiProject is on an equal footing with any other. Maybe if all of the state projects were converted to task forces under USRD, then yes, USRD would be the controlling project, but it is not. Until such time as consensus is reached to completely convert projects to task forces, I fully support the principles as outlined in the manifesto. -- Imzadi1979 ( talk) 00:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be vehemently opposed to a wide-spread demotion for the reasons you gave above. I'm also of the opinion that a good number of the state projects have become mature enough to survive on their own, whether it be for a stability of content (most if not all of the state highway articles in that state at least exist, so the focus is now on refinement/expansion), a larger editor base, or for other reasons. Take NY for example: it has a successful intrastate AID, which to date has resulted in the significant improvement of a half-dozen articles. The USRD AID, meanwhile, has been a shell of that. NY also has developed ways to deal with minor connector routes, bannered routes, and suffixed routes. These decisions are best made at a state level with little to no interference from USRD, since the practice (on Wiki) and nature (in reality) of each state varies, sometimes slightly, sometimes significantly.

That said, I have zero issues with what was said in the manifesto. This is, in my opinion, the direction that USRD should take for at least the immediate future, and possibly for the long haul. Now, let's actually get some article work done around here instead of bickering about hierarchy... -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Addressing objections

I was wondering if NE2 could clarify his position above, as it is unclear what the issues are. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked you to clarify. Please do so. -- NE2 02:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Most people seem to get the gist of this, what's the deal? Stratosphere ^{( U T)} 02:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The "deal" is that I'm not a "team player". -- NE2 02:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case, but we're asking for clarification of your position since the "team" seems to understand the dilly. Stratosphere ^{( U T)} 02:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What are your objections to the manifesto? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to giving the states "independence", since we are all part of one encyclopedia. -- NE2 11:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"More powers" != "independence." -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Projects don't have power; the editors have power by editing. -- NE2 22:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So then what's with your assertion that USRD should trump the state projects? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, editors should follow guidelines, and those guidelines should jive with general Wikipedia guidelines. It's a lot easier to do that in one place than in over 50. The solution to a walled garden is not to split it into many smaller such gardens. -- NE2 23:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of my position. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said in the manifesto that state highway WikiProjects had the power to override Wikipedia guidelines. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just think of it as how the actual federal government and state governments do now. Individual states don't have the authority to override federal laws, but the states do have a certain level of autonomy as well. -- Holderca1 ^talk 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok perhaps what we need to think about is this. There needs to be some sort of cohesion between the state roads and this i feel needs to be in the form of USRD guidelines. These need to be general guidelines that are set for all projects for examples terms that are contentious, perhaps things that are required in an article like history, route description etc etc etc. Then the state projects below then should be allowed to explore beyond these guidelines as long as there is consensus within that stateproject. If things that are being done at state level work really well then it should then be discussed about the possibility of employing this across USRD. If a state is doing something that someone doesn't like it should first be discussed at state level. Then if that does not solve the problem then it should be brought to USRD. As long as the main guidelines, set out by USRD are followed there is no reason for sub projects to explore new ideas. Seddon69 ( talk) 23:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The intentions of this manifesto was to explain that several editors realize that toes were being stepped on by exhibiting "power" over the state wikiproject - power that should not exist. The pages at USRD (USRD/INNA, USRD/MTF, USRD/S, etc - are guidelines. They don't supercede any Wikipedia guidelines at all. Combining the participants list was a mistake, and the opportunity is being taken to repair the damages from that mistake - one that has been understood. Seddon69 pretty much explained what would be the best approach - and I understand that other "hierarchial like" projects may be following similar patterns. I support this - not blindly.  — master son ^{T - C} 23:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone will agree that the past few months have not gone over well. We have major problems here and it is the two users who cannot agree with each other, Rschen7754 and NE2. Or if you'd rather me be less specific, USRD and NE2.

Rschen7754

A great user and all. The founder of USRD, the head honcho in some ways. Well, he has a problem just standing up and putting down NE2's views and making him agree with USRD. Its apparently gonna take more than a great debate, an ArbCom case, a failed mediation, 3 RFCs and other things to get him to agree. Listen Rschen: You need to stand up for your ideas better. You gotta try harder. You gotta work harder.

NE2

You are according to others, the new SPUI. Personally, I like to give you chances because I don't know you well. But, breaking consensus multiple times, not agreeing, incivility, and other things I won't get into cause no help to anyone. Please try to work harder to make a compromise.

WHAT you gotta understand is that USRD is a collaborative effort. The more arguing we put into it, the worse we look as friends. Collaborative users are to be friends, not complete enemies. Please can we come to some kind of decision and decide what to do from now on?! ^Mitch 32 ^contribs 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've stricken out most of my comments. If anyone could, I'd like to see the last unstricken lines be used as a good peaceful discussion. ^Mitch 32 ^contribs 00:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't see Rschen7754 as an enemy, and I'd hope he doesn't see me as one. -- NE2 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Presently over half the articles in Category:High-importance U.S. road transport articles are about Interstates. Interstates certainly are high-importance, but it seems non-Interstates are being forgotten. It can be nice, especially on a state level, to have a range of importance, rather than the vast majority of state-numbered highways at mid-importance, so editors wanting to work on an article can find one. Would it be a good idea to specify that being on the National Highway System makes a route high-importance (except for intermodal connectors and other spur types, and except for short pieces of a long route that simply serve to connect a route to the end of a longer one, like SR 36 between I-5 and SR 99 and between SR 44 and US 395)? In California, this would be about 1/4 of the system; most (?) other states have at least the density that California has, and would thus have a similar or smaller proportion as high-importance. Of course if there's another reason that a route is importance, such as SR 480, it can be high-importance without being on the NHS. -- NE2 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The routes on the NHS are probably a good starting point for high importance articles within a state. However, we should not be straight-jacketed by it. There are some roads that are listed on the NHS because they are simply short connectors between say a state facility (airport) and the main highway. The NHS is after all mainly designated more as a whole network rather than a list of important highways. There is also the issue of how to deal with roads where only a very small portion of it is on the NHS. Those little details should be discussed rather than blindly following the NHS. Freeways that interconnect distinct urban areas, even if not part of the NHS, should also be high importance (although I can't think of an example right now that isn't also NHS). -- Polaron | Talk 16:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe those are all intermodal connectors - but yeah, I agree. There is the occasional exception. -- NE2 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

States may have their own way of categorizing roads based on their vitalness to the state's infrastructure. Some are temporary lists for long term planning, for example, Wisconsin had Corridors 2020 backbones and connectors which now is hardly referenced anymore. We could have all of the backbones be high importance routes in WI - which only switches WIS 29. Or the connectors could be included - which adds parts of more state routes. But as mentioned, this is an outdated map which WisDOT really doesn't reference anymore.  — master son ^{T - C} 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Another example which NE2 pointed out is talked about back at WT:CASH  — master son ^{T - C} 19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The question that brings up (other than should Union Pacific Avenue be an article and belong in said importance) is whether or not an entire article (let's say SH 1) should be marked if only a small part of SH 1 is in the strategic highway network (which, oddly there isn't a wikipedia article about). — Rob ( talk) 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Strategic Highway Network? I'd say if it's only in the NHS because it connects the end of one route to another, it doesn't count. A good example of this is SR 36, which is in the NHS between I-5 and SR 99 and between SR 44 and US 395: [1] By the way, where's Union Pacific Avenue, and what part of the NHS is it in? -- NE2 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment#Importance scale. -- NE2 13:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are County Route 501 (New Jersey) and County Route 504 (New Jersey) High-importance? They're only county maintained routes and probably should be demoted to Mid-class. ^Mitch 32 ^contribs 18:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Because they're in the NHS, and do appear to be major. CR 504 looks like a major connection between Paterson and NJ 23, and CR 501 is a major road in Hudson and Bergen Counties. I could see bumping them down to mid though, especially with NJ 440 completed. -- NE2 19:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder - if you expand the text (not counting exit lists, infoboxes, and such) of an article fivefold, you can get it added to did you know as long as you can find a relatively interesting referenced fact (see WP:USRD/DYK for examples). With the amount of one-sentence stubs out there, this is actually pretty easy. -- NE2 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Auxiliary U.S. Route -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick tip for those trying to improve the quality of articles and get them passed through WP:GA. Make sure you have a good lead paragraph, see WP:LEAD if you need help. It is the first thing a reader sees and sometimes determines if they will want to read anymore. I was looking at some of the nominations we currently have over at WP:GAN and I noticed California State Route 174. This article will definitely not get passed through as is. The lead paragraph is much too short and doesn't summarize the article. Basically, for every section of the article you need at least one sentence in the lead summarizing the main points of that section. Depending on the length of the section, the portion in the lead should be based on that length. I know when I am looking at articles, this is the first thing I nitpick as to me it is the most important part. The lead should be able to stand on its own and give the reader a general idea of the topic. If they want more details, they will continue to read. -- Holderca1 ^talk 14:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone has asked here exactly what point highway sign makers use for distances to towns. I thought someone here might know. Please answer on the Desk or on my talk page if you do. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 18:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Do a search on the newspapers "Reno Gazette Journal" and "Nevada Appeal". About 2 years ago there was an innocent sign error (incorrectly listing the distance between Carson City and Reno) along the Carson City Freeway (U.S. Route 395/ Unsigned Interstate 580), that sparked a debate on this very subject. IIRC an NDOT official said they use from central post office to central post office. If you do find it let me know =-) Davemeistermoab ( talk) 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Found it: http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20051108/NEWS/111080052 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemeistermoab ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we add a prohibition on sections like California State Route 160#Legal definition or California State Route 65#State law? The information can all be placed elsewhere, as it is in SR 160, making this section redundant. -- NE2 12:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Right now this section is mandated by WP:CASH. I'd go to that talk page to discuss it. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a case of a project disagreeing with Wikipedia-wide consensus; here the consensus is against a short section that consists of a mere list. See for instance Wikipedia:Embedded list and Wikipedia:Layout#Headers and paragraphs. -- NE2 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for such a discussion; having it here asks USRD to overrule CASH, which is a precedent that we are trying to get away from. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

USRD should "overrule" CASH, just as Wikipedia should "overrule" USRD and CASH. -- NE2 20:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See the manifesto section above - that's not what people want. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a person too... and so is everyone that's not a part of USRD. -- NE2 20:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is that for a long time, we've been offending editors by having USRD overrule state highway WikiProjects. I'd say that nearly all of the IRC "walled garden" editors, even those who were formerly against such a move, have come to provisionally support the move to give power back to the states.

But as for the matter at hand, what would be easier - reach a quick consensus and conclusion at WT:CASH, or keep hashing out WikiProject delegation here? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussing it at WT:CASH would have no effect on other projects that do something similar, such as Utah. -- NE2 20:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, then it probably is appropriate to have it here - but please be sure to post WT:CASH and WT:UTSH and any other projects affected about this - forgot about that. Sorry. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as input on the actual issue, it's got a link in the infobox, why is a separate section needed? Stratosphere ^{( U T)} 21:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as there is a link somewhere, I don't think it's needed. I don't think that UTSH requires a state law section in the infobox, though. CASH does though. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If the infobox doesn't support it can't it just be added to the "References" section? Stratosphere ^{( U T)} 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox road supports the section - but a template page for each state needs to be added. i.e. Template:Infobox road/CA law. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that up to each state's WP to decide if the law link goes in the infobox? Stratosphere ^{( U T)} 21:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Um... my opinion is that under the new system, unless INNA says something, it is up to them. I'd imagine that nearly every state would put it in the infobox though. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Freaking edit conflicts... anyways... I was under the impression the mainfesto, summarized, said "for open issues, resolve at the state level, but if WP has something to say about it, resolve at theirs." — Rob ( talk) 20:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

California, Mississippi, Utah, Washington, and one of the Dakotas (?) define routes by state law. Minnesota also does, but the numbers don't match the signed numbers (like California pre-1964, Pennsylvania pre-1980s). There may be other states too. -- NE2 21:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So what is the conclusion of this? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I please have some comments on Talk:New York State Route 174 on whether it should be a Good Article? Thank you. -- NE2 18:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears it has passed GA or are you saying it shouldn't be? -- Holderca1 ^talk 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying it shouldn't be; I've pointed out several flaws. -- NE2 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion that we shouldn't be reviewing any of the road articles for GA due to a conflict of interest. Although there is nothing wrong with stating things that could be improved which could be done anytime. If you feel it doesn't meet GA criteria, request to get a second opinion. -- Holderca1 ^talk 11:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of what I did here... -- NE2 13:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

When I said second opinion, I was thinking more along the lines of listing it at WP:GAR. -- Holderca1 ^talk 14:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd like to know if I'd be wasting my time. -- NE2 14:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To me, it's borderline GA. It's certainly a lot better than NJ 18 was when it was passed (twice). (Although I realize that's a red herring, since that shouldn't have been passed.) I'm not terribly familiar with the Seneca Turnpike issue, but it seems to me that the statement in the lead is correct as far as it goes. If the article were to be improved, that info should be expanded and moved elsewhere, but just because it's a GA doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. The same goes for issues with the historical designation. The info is well cited, although it is possible some of those references are being misinterpreted. The article doesn't have to be perfect, just "good".

That being said, here are my main two gripes with the article. The reason I'm posting this on WT:USRD too is because I've noticed it on several other articles as well.

• The phrase "at 10.66 miles" doesn't seem to be gramatically correct to my ears. Every time I read it, I have to stare at it for a split second before I realize what it means. "At milepost 10.66" would be a lot better, but I agree with Holderca1 when he says that these distances aren't needed in the route description section.
• I realize that WP:USSH doesn't actually say anything about county routes, but to me, "Onandoga County Route 236" is in violation of this. All of NY 174 is in Onandoga County, and several of these mentions come a sentence or two after the county name was repeated, so context is clearly established. Plus, we even use parenthetical disambiguation in the article title for county routes. "Onandoga CR 236" is doubly wrong, since we should avoid using abbreviations in article text.

-- NORTH ^talk 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just made a new logo for our WikiProject! This uses a blank U.S. Route Shield and the shield for Interstate 95 (without "95"). Enjoy! — ComputerGuy890100 • Talk • 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but why do we need this? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at WikiProject National Football League and they had a logo, so I thought we should have our own logo, because we are very large and well-known on Wikipedia. — ComputerGuy 89 0 100 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

NJSCR is having a discussion about project improving proposals. Its on the talk page. ^Mitch 32 ^contribs 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I created Category: Images of traffic signs to organize all the images. I'd have called the category road signs which seems more inclusive to me, but Wikipedia's Road signs simply redirects to Traffic signs. Doczilla ( talk) 03:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We really don't need categories on Commons images. -- NE2 03:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Not all traffic sign images are Commons images. 2. For other users to use particular sign images, it would help to be able to find the images. Not all of them have names that are easy to guess. I have a project I need to use the images for, and I will need quick access to them when the time comes. 3. Image categories are important for anyone who wants to run a fair use and documentation check. Doczilla ( talk) 03:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There are equivalent categories on Commons; why not categorize the non-Commons ones and link to the Commons category? -- NE2 04:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, all free traffic sign images should be migrated to Commons ASAP (excluding ones that have missing author, licensing, source, or permission information), and the others left alone. Wikipedia isn't an image gallery, and it certainly isn't a launch pad for one user's personal needs (user subpages are there to a certain extent). Other users can use Commons categories to find the specific images, in which essentially are image galleries. 哦， 是吗？( O-person) 04:28, 10 February 2008 (GMT)

The Commons categories are basically useless because they're split between two redundant cats: Roads in x and Road signs in x, where x is the state. I advocated merging them but it seems a people love useless categories, so it was shot down. I'd recommend devoting any categorizing energy to resolving that, if anything.— Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a personal need. I'm talking about a Wikipedia project. Regardless of my use, images need organization. Users need to be able to find them. NE2's suggestion makes a lot of sense. Doczilla ( talk) 04:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Then if the discussion is about Commons organisation, then the discussion needs to be moved over there. This talk page has no effect on Commons decision-making in this case. 哦， 是吗？( O-person) 04:45, 10 February 2008 (GMT)

NE2 suggested categorizing the ones that aren't on the Commons and linking to the Commons. That's what would be done on the Wikipedia side of the equation. Doczilla ( talk) 04:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say limit it to just the images that are on Wikipedia only, which should just be the fair use images that can't be at the commons, otherwise, you would have a lot of work on your hands. There are over 1,000 Texas highway images on the commons, I don't think you want to go through all those. We already have a page that links to all the commons cats anyways. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields/Database. -- Holderca1 ^talk 14:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a proposal to weaken the superseded images policy at commons, which is having effects at Wikipedia such as user confusion about which image to use. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[2] -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Texas FM shields -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reason when I requested them to be deleted in the past, everyone voted keep. I had simply requested the deletion and forgot about it since when I did the same for the state highway shields, they were deleted with no problem. Not sure why anyone would want to keep around an inferior duplicate. -- Holderca1 ^talk 14:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons is like that for some incomprehensible reason. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons serves all Wikimedia projects and languages. That means Commons has to be a bit more lenient on handling deletion requests similar to this nature, so Commons really cannot force projects to use any such image. Pretty much anything that is or can be of value to any Wikimedia project stays (with obvious exceptions, of course). To close, the English Wikipedia is no place to discuss about Commons. 哦， 是吗？( O-person) 03:23, 10 February 2008 (GMT)

They've all been kept. Please don't do that again. dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂0) 23:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's perfectly within our rights to do so... -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rschen7754, but disagree with doing this. I removed "even though some logically flawed answers were presented in response to USRD users' premises". -- NE2 04:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, on second thought that probably should have been removed. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I just created this article. Does anyone know of any examples outside California, not counting the New Jersey Turnpike which is a different sort of thing? I can't think of any, and I suspect it's a California-only thing, but I'd like to be sure. -- NE2 08:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The closest thing here refers more to truck restrictions, and even then I can only think of four - Truck IL 64, the ramp from EB I-88 to EB I-290 splits into a cars-only and truck+car ramp, and the express lanes of both the Kennedy and Dan Ryan Expressways. Nothing on individual ramps to at-grade crossings though. — Rob ( talk) 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - the I-88/I-290 ramp ( [3]) is the same idea. Do you know what it was called during construction? -- NE2 22:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing specific - it's sort of called a "ramp for trucks" most of the time. Early proposals were for the ramp to be used by trucks during rush hour only. I'm kind of glad that died... [4] — Rob ( talk) 22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Texas will have truck only lanes when the Trans-Texas Corridor is built. Which would allow the car lanes to have an 85 mph speed limit. -- Holderca1 ^talk 17:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Historically speaking, MI had TRUCK US 27/TRUCK M-78 in Lansing. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How do people feel about creating a list entitled List of exceptions to the Interstate Highway System? Can such a list be both thorough and properly referenced? We already have List of gaps in Interstate Highways, which is a more specific version of the concept.

I'm thinking what would go here are system exceptions (I-99 being west of just about everything), directional exceptions (I-69 runs east-west?), auxiliary interstate exceptions (I-635 in Texas, apparently) and the like. — Rob ( talk) 16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds kind of trivial to me. What about I-635 is an exception? -- Holderca1 ^talk 17:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it was one of the only 3dis starting with an even number to not terminate at its parent at either end. Or something like that. I removed it from Interstate Highway System, along with many other examples of the above. — Rob ( talk) 17:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it did when it was first designated, but doesn't really sound encyclopedic anyways. -- Holderca1 ^talk 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey,

There's a note on Stratosphere's talk page that the Michican highway Wikiproject template has been nominated for speedy deletion. [5] [6]. I searched and found nothing else regarding this. What's the news?
25or6to4 ( talk) 00:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject templates were combined into the USRD one to consolidate code a while ago, first as meta-templates then later fully replaced by the USRD template using AWB. So, in short, the old by-WikiProject templates haven't been in use in a while. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Interstate_Highways#AARoads -- Holderca1 ^talk 04:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The 75 IP is continuing to make poor edits. At what point do we term this vandalism? (Terming this as vandalism means that we can rollback and block). -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really is vandalism, so the answer would be "never". -- NE2 05:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But then we're stuck dealing with them... this is what happened with the St. Louis Signer. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What IP are we talking about, the one editing the southern terminus of I-75 repeatedly? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the one making random edits to CASH articles. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.47.139.3 is the most recent IP - he does a lot of minor edits, some of which are correct (I forgot to remove the east), and most of which have recently been adding ceremonial names of freeways to exit lists - and sometimes removing others that are based on location and are or have been common names, which is very strange. Go through the history of those articles to find other IPs he's used. My amateur diagnosis is that he's a developmentally challenged newbie. Sometimes it seems like training a bot - after I revert a bunch of his edits, he "learns" and makes the same sort of changes as I did to other articles, even where they are inappropriate. I've tried to communicate with him but he doesn't seem interested. It may be blockable but not as vandalism, since I believe he thinks he's acting in good faith. I think I've also seen him removing sockpuppet warnings that link IPs (his? can't remember) to AL2TB, which doesn't seem to be true; AL2TB has a rather different (and much better) style than he. Maybe I'm remembering this incorrectly; Rschen7754 might know. -- NE2 06:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, I'd say let the IP continue to edit. In my view, he's doing just fine with his edits so far; I just don't know why are you all having problems with him. You can revert his edits all you want, but so far, he just doesn't seem to respond or make any comments about his edits other than in his edit summaries. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Stuff like this is "just fine"? Two-sentence leads are not "too long", but rather too short. Also, edits like this are subpar. Unfortunately, we can't call it vandalism. What I would suggest is if we have chronic problems, take it to the admin noticeboards and see what action they propose. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was already aware of your first link, when the IP applied the template saying that the intro was too long when it really only had to sentences. He could have meant the whole article was too long (and I think the article is long too) and used the wrong template. But I'm not going to do anything about it. As for the freeway names, I have no clue about them or why do some freeways have alternate names. Don't ask me. Anyways, as long as his intentions are to assume good faith at least most of the time and that he is trying to help WP:USRD (not hurt it), I think he's doing just fine so far. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Good faith does not necessarily mean the edits themselves are good. The St. Louis Signer probably was acting in good faith, but the amount of time required to clean up their edits exceeds whatever benefit leaving them unblocked has. Basically, the question we should be asking is, do the benefits of allowing 75 to edit outweigh the drawbacks of same?— Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Another consideration is that the user doesn't seem to be responding to attempts to reach them; perhaps they aren't getting the messages, or perhaps they're merely ignoring them. Blocking while allowing the creation of a user account would mean that the user could continue to edit, but would be forced into getting a username, which we could keep better tabs on and know that they're getting the messages. Another alternative could be to drop HTML comments into the articles that they seem to be most interested in, and if they edit contrary to those notices, there'll be no question as to whether they're editing in bad faith or not. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Who's this St. Louis Singer you speak of? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 02:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to intervene due to the suspicions that flare up from this IP. I find it highly unusual that the 75.47.xxx.xxx range is editing those USRD articles in a consistently stubborn attitude. Knowing that all the edits form that range of IP are mostly from USRD articles (as of this month, last month, and maybe the month before that), I'm strongly suspecting sockpuppetry going on (I don't know who, but it is nearly obvious sockpuppetry). Here is a question that can arrive at a conclusion. Who uses the 75.47.xxx.xxx range? Who would be so stubborn not to listen to other editors and at risk of being blocked? This is so strange... Pre ston H 02:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish to know too Preston, but not even me nor my cousin were associated with him in real life. No one knows who he is, but we at Wikipedia all must reach a resolution with the IP somehow... ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 02:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No. We do not compromise with those acting in bad faith or with those who do not understand how to contribute to the encyclopedia constructively. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction: You do not "compromise with those acting in bad faith or with those who do not understand how to contribute to the encyclopedia constructively." But a few people (including me) actually do. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We usually can't find a resolution if he/she keeps acting up this way AL2TB. It can't be Artisol2345 BTW, because he has restricted access to his computers as AL2TB said. If it isn't Artisol2345, than who could it be? I'm leaning toward checkuser to determine who is responsible for the abuse that is going on (i.e. stalking Rschen7754, making poor quality edits after being warned many times etc.) Pre ston H 03:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, my cousin is only banned from Wikipedia by his mom and dad, not his computer as a whole. He's likely to go on Wikipedia under my computer if he comes to my house, and I bet he's doing this the next time he does it during my birthday party in March. (Yes, I know, this was off-topic, but I needed to respond to your last comment.) ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[indent reset] I am concerned with the IP, however. He refused to create an account after being asked to, since that enables us to communicate much easier with them. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We both know it can't be Artisol2345 due to his parents banning him from Wikipedia. But that IP is stubborn, which makes it hard to communicate. Who is he/she? Pre ston H 03:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Parents ban their kids from drinking and smoking, but they manage to still do those things as well. -- Holderca1 ^talk 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's called a "website filter". My cousin's daddy blocked my cousin's access to Wikipedia. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is he not allowed to leave his house? There are many places that have internet access, not just on his home computer. -- Holderca1 ^talk 21:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

His parents do not allow him to use other computers. In short: he can't use Wikipedia anymore because his parents found him abusing his privileges. Period. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we have no way of verifying that. Even if this is true, most high schools have a computer lab and he could easily be editing from there.— Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I've been down to San Diego County and learned that his school district blocked access to Wikipedia as well, due to the fact that Wikipedia isn't a reputable source for resources (see Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great), and the fact that it's proven to be a plain distraction to students. In fact, Wikipedia is also blocked from my school district, probably for those same reasons. Also, my cousin is only in middle school. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[7]??? Are we sure of the AL2TB=Artisol12345 connection? -- NE2 04:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We have no definite answers, save for the "likely" result of the RFCU between AL2TB and Artisol2345. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on the edit NE2 left out, that has to be Artisol2345 (or any of his close relatives). This points out another thing, if that IP = Artisol2345 and he has a different MoS than AL2TB, than it reduces the chances of AL2TB being Artisol2345 (as NE2 pointed very early in this thread). I can't confirm that Artisol2345 is really leaving, so we'll have to see. Pre ston H 04:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't you all think that all this is left behind since this case has concluded? You may continue to believe that I'm a sockpuppet of my cousin or not. However, I still don't understand why you guys bring this up. Also, NE2 did not spell my cousin's username right. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I repeat: none of my relatives are related to the person using the 75.47 IP. Try using WHOIS, checkuser, or any IP address locator between me and the 75 IP. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 18:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether the 75 IP is him or not, let us just ignore and revert (and possibly discuss if the edits are legitimate). The case is drawing to a close AL2TB, and many editors including believe probably realize by now that you are not a sockpuppet. But, you should improve your reputation as an editor (like listening to suggestions and learning) so we can move on from this drama. Pre ston H 18:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to do so. This is one of the reasons why I start to edit highways in Japan because not many people are patrolling those articles. Now if only Rschen7754 could realize that I am not a sockpuppet. I mean, after all, with 2,230 edits and counting, how could I be a sockpuppet with that many edits... ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For those who don't know: The St. Louis signer is an IP editor that continually edits St. Louis-related articles on highways (interstates, Missouri state highways that are freeways, and some in Illinois as well) and television channels to change things to uppercase against various MOS guidelines, including the exit list guide. In addition, they'd append their ~~~~ signature to the end of the article. After continual reversion of this editor, leaving notes on their talk pages, and leaving HTML comments in the target articles, it became clear that they were getting the message and just being stubborn, so after taking it to the admin noticeboard, they were blocked. Krimpet has been happy to renew the block as needed, so it's been less of an issue as of late. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean IP addresses like this one? I understand they are repeatedly violating MOS, but where did you guys coin the name "St. Louis Singer?" ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It was actually coined by someone else outside of USRD in their userspace, where they were compiling IPs used by the Signer. And the name stuck. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision#Motion for dismissal -- NE2 01:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reason several of the Texas articles are not being counted by the bot, see Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Texas_road_transport_articles_by_quality_log#February_20.2C_2008 where the bot is removing them. Although, I don't think it is the bot that is acting up, for some reason, these articles aren't showing up in the category either, but if you go to the talk page of the article, it will still show that it is indeed in that category. I don't have a clue as to what is going on. -- Holderca1 ^talk 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have located the issue here. If an article has multiple project tags, and they don't agree, then they won't be counted. They must agree on quality and importance. -- Holderca1 ^talk 17:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It also appears to only recognize the first project banner listed, so subsequent banners aren't counted. Anyone know why this is doing this?? -- Holderca1 ^talk 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it doesn't like nested templates either. -- Holderca1 ^talk 18:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No - Riana protected many of the USRD templates yesterday and added a line break at the end of them when she added the page protection template, horribly breaking the USRD template and completely disabling assessment. Unfortunately, some bot runs were made during this "down time" (about an hour) and thus assessment is messed up for the near future. The templates have since been fixed, and once the job queue gets back in order (within a couple of days), all should be good to go again. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The USRD template was protected from editing because it's a high-risk template, but when the admin protected it, she added a few blank lines that broke it. The way templates work is through the m:job queue, which means that when you edit a template, the changes get placed in a queue and the changes are applied as the servers work their way through the queue. Right now, Special:Statistics says the queue 9,887,786 pages long, so even though the templates got fixed, it'll take a while for the change to cascade through the pages. The same thing affects every state, so just wait a few days, and we'll be good to go again. (If you really want to speed the process along, do m:null edits to the talk pages, and it'll update the transclusion and you won't have to wait for the job queue, but that takes quite a lot of effort for something the server's going to be doing for you anyway.) — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, pretty ironic if you ask me, protecting a high risk template, but breaking it in the process. IMO, they should just leave them alone until someone vandalizes them. -- Holderca1 ^talk 18:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked and the protections were changed to semi-protection. -- NE2 00:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll finish fixing the stats tomorrow; until things are straightened out I've been factoring in the articles removed. Let me know if there are any mistakes; today I discovered that Iowa and Maine weren't updated in a few months since they never made it onto my watchlist! (Oops). -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/U.S. road transport articles by quality log updated without any removals, it's all been fixed. -- NE2 12:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely, I just ran the bot, and I am still counting 9 Texas articles that aren't being counted as well as 3 list articles. -- Holderca1 ^talk 14:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah - strange. It's not seeing it in the Texas categories but is seeing it in the U.S. categories. -- NE2 14:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_19#Category:Illinois_River_Road:_Route_of_the_Voyagers

I just haven't gotten around to creating a stub article or adding content to this yet. But I'm not against deletion, either, depending on how categories for scenic routes should work. — Rob ( talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

NE2 is challenging following a state DOT standard at Template talk:Infobox road/MO/abbrev Interstate. Input requested. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. I'm challenging a "standard" that they only use when spelling out the name on signs. -- NE2 01:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:USRD/AID has been inactive lately. Many efforts to revive it have failed. Are there any objections to shutting it down and tagging it as {{ historical}}? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Since the WikiWork board has inspired a lot of work to be done, the need for the AID has passed. Never was too successful anyhow. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a green light. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to recent edits to U.S. Route 301 in Maryland, a discussion was started at WT:MDRD#<national highway> in Maryland articles regarding the first sentence in articles on sections of U.S. and Interstate highways in a particular state (Maryland in that case, but it really applies to any state). I proposed that they be written to be consistent with most Wikipedia articles by formatting them as "<route name> in <state> is a highway...". The other version, which US 301 in Maryland was being changed to, only bolded "U.S. Route 301", a third version doesn't bold anything at all, arguing that the title of the articles in merely descriptive. Considering that this applies to any state, I figured I'd ask here what other editors think. -Jeff ^(talk) 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You should bold the title of the article, but don't link anything that is bolded. -- Holderca1 ^talk 17:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I misread what you were talking about, don't bold anything. See Wikipedia:Lead_section#Bold_title. You aren't required to have a bolded title in the lead, especially if the title is descriptive. For example, the name of the highway isn't "U.S. Route 301 in Maryland." -- Holderca1 ^talk 17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting help at U.S. Route 50 in California. -- NE2 01:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice you and AL2TB haven't discussed this on the talk page or each others' user talk pages. Perhaps that's the best place to start? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I figure this talk page is the best place to start, although WP:LEAD#Bold title is pretty clear. -- NE2 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Two discussions are ongoing at WT:USRD/SUB. Firstly, a task force for all the various non-state areas of the United States is proposed; this would include D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and several other territories.

Secondly, the Kansas state highways subproject is proposed for demotion to task force. Comments welcome on these discussions. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Digit System of Highways in Puerto Rico — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if everyone could take a look at this, since the discussion is turning into something that could affect a number of articles on other state highway systems. -- Kéiryn ( talk) 20:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to expand this to articles that don't have a junction list? I'm not saying we should go and tag everything (though I wouldn't complain if someone does), but it would be useful to see what people want junction lists added to. -- NE2 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Wouldn't oppose a separate category, though.— Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the existing category: absolutely not. Creating a new category for it: maybe, but I don't see the usefulness of it. It'd be like tagging every article without history or route descriptions. There's also no universal standards for junction lists. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you set it up as a hidden category, there should be no objections. With the availability of hidden categories, creating special purpose maintenance categories should be easier to create without objections. Hidden categories do not show up in the article, just on the category page and the categories will show in any parent categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that it would be a param on {{ USRD}} and thus actually categorize the talk pages, much in the same way the "exit list needs attention" tag we have now works.

I agree with TMF, if the goal of it is to get articles to B class, then you would need cats for missing history and route description sections. -- Holderca1 ^talk 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's pretty clear we're not including junction lists in this category. So why was this tagged? Never mind that it's debatable whether or not it even needs attention... It's not even a junction list! -- Kéiryn ( talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[8] -- NE2 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of this link is, just because someone else does it, doesn't mean it is right. Last time I looked, junction lists aren't even required to follow ELG. That's why you have some using color. -- Holderca1 ^talk 16:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When I came across the category a few days ago it had maybe 16 articles, including that one and probably one or two more non-freeways. So I took that as a starting point and added more. -- NE2 16:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When these are getting tagged, could we get a quick note on the talk page regarding what is wrong? If you are reviewing it the first place and see something wrong, go ahead and pass that along. It doesn't make sense for the next editor to come along and stare at it to try and figure out what is wrong. -- Holderca1 ^talk 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, a follow on to that, I have noticed that NE2 has tagged some articles and after inquiring what is wrong, one of the issues he has is having "Westbound only" vs. "Westbound exit, eastbound entrance" in the notes column. I didn't see anything in the guideline that states that the former is an incorrect way of doing thing. -- Holderca1 ^talk 15:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Westbound only" is ambiguous - it probably means that there's a westbound exit, but is there an eastbound exit? Is there a westbound entrance? It could be argued that it's most likely to mean that there's only westbound access, with no entrance or exit eastbound. -- NE2 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not in ELG though, so you can't tag it being non-compliant with that rationale. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that is ambiguous at all, if it says "Westbound only," doesn't that mean there isn't an eastbound exit? And what in "Westbound exit, eastbound entrance" clarifies that? Also, these are exit lists, not an exit and entrance list. There are entrances from frontage roads onto freeways not associated with an exit that aren't listed. -- Holderca1 ^talk 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter if there's an entrance or not. It's an exit list, not an entrance list. "Westbound only" would mean there is only a westbound exit. -- MPD ^{T / C} 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't be calling them exit lists then. We do list the occasional interchange with no exits, such as on Interstate 280 (California). If it's encyclopedic to list the exits, it's just as encyclopedic to list the entrances; just listing the exit ramps is something a travel guide would do. -- NE2 16:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Although, I would argue that adding the entrances would be more like a travel guide. I thought the point of the exit list was to show what you can access from the freeway. There articles are from the point of view of the freeway. If the freeway doesn't access a street, it shouldn't be mentioned. That's just my opinion though. -- Holderca1 ^talk 16:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would we only give half the information? The article is about the freeway and its relation to the surrounding roads; interchanges interchange traffic in both directions. -- NE2 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well for starters, how are we even going to document it? Are we just going to have a bunch of lines that say entrance point to freeway? -- Holderca1 ^talk 17:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is off-topic. If this isn't in ELG, then you can't tag something for non-compliance for ELG because of it. If you think it should be added to ELG, go propose it over there and we'll talk about it. (Talking about it here closes out other projects that may use ELG, like CRWP and UKRD.) But please don't proactively tag things for being against ELG because of it. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea is that it's a quick way to request help from those (like me) that like doing them. I just figured that I should first add some that do need help. We've had Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide/Compliance for a while. -- NE2 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To me, "needing attention" says, "zOMG! Look at this ugly exit list! Someone better give it some attention and fix it!" In other words, something someone's actually going to have to work at to format it properly and stuff. I think a lot of the recent tagging is for minor stuff that's not all that obvious at first, and we might need to be pointed towards it a little more specifically in order to fix it. -- Kéiryn ( talk) 16:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So change the wording to something more like "requested infobox" and less like "attention". -- NE2 16:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever we change the wording to, it's still going to flag it without telling us exactly what needs to be fixed. If it's something minor, probably the reason it's there is because people have already glossed over it 20,000 times, and we're not going to see it on the 20,001st time just because it's flagged. If you've already looked through the article and found what's wrong, I don't see what the problem is with leaving a note on the talk page saying what the problem is. It makes it more likely that someone else will come along and fix it. -- Kéiryn ( talk) 16:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So if you have any questions about specific ones, ask me. I won't be doing any more mass-tagging, but I won't go back and add a reason for every one I tagged. US 9 is pretty good; the main issue is the colors. There also seem to be some interchanges missing near the north end. -- NE2 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So are we using this for junction lists or not? -- Kéiryn ( talk) 16:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're tagging too much. Not everything has an exit list (i.e. Junction lists). And consensus has been for a while that as long as it makes sense (paraphrasing), then it's fine. Also, NE2, I'd be more than glad to help with exit lists more often except every time I do something to one it's re-done by you anyway. So you're tagging everything that needs "work", be my guest to do all the work. -- MPD ^{T / C} 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the posters above, if you're going to tag an article as needing attention, you need to specify what needs to be done. Stratosphere| Talk 17:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I just cleaned up Florida State Road 9A's exit list, and it appears I was a bit overzealous in tagging. -- NE2 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would be a good idea to make sure all the articles like Category:Start-Class Interstate Highway System articles and Category:High-importance Washington road transport articles are subcategories of the correspending U.S. categories and then tag them with __HIDDENCAT__ to reduce the "category clutter" on the talk pages? -- NE2 00:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could, but since it's the talk namespace there's no real need to. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If I do the work, will you object? -- NE2 01:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that's helpful, since there would then be no links to the categories. Personally, I don't like HIDDENCAT at all - at least until a way to make the "hidden" categories appear on edit pages is found. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's why I'd make sure the state categories are all in the U.S. categories, so you can click to those and then to the states. -- NE2 01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(And the ones that are already there would be re-sorted to the front - maybe I won't bother doing this. -- NE2 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

I don't know when it was added, but the edit page now shows the hidden categories below the templates; see U.S. Route 19 Truck (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) for example. -- NE2 14:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There's still a significant backlog of U.S. Road articles at wp:good article nominations. We do not have enough regular reviewers to deal with all the nominations received, and unfortunately certain topics seem to suffer more than others. The good news is that the review process is relatively simple and any registered user is more than welcome to participate. If you'd like to help out, simply pick an article you haven't contributed to from the list and see if it meets every good article criteria. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the good article nominations talk page or even directly on my talk page. -- jwanders ^Talk 21:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage members of this project to help lessen the backlog by reviewing articles on non-road subjects, so that we can encourage more sets of eyes reading our articles, as well as to minimize drama. The last time something like this was attempted, it lead to a lot of bickering. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is better for the articles for someone not as familiar with roads to review. As I found out from nominating a list for featured list that there are a lot of things that I don't think twice about that the average person wouldn't understand. -- Holderca1 ^talk 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are valid concerns, but unfortunately the number of wikipedians interested in road articles is not large, and I expect most are already involved with this project. Unlike Featured articles, a GA review is a fair bit of work for a single editor, meaning reviewers tend to stick to subjects that interest them. I think it would be best to assume members of this project will review the project's articles in good faith, and the project itself is more than welcome to do quality control of passed articles. One alternative that's been suggested but never implemented is finding another Wikiproject with a large GA backlog and agree to exchange reviews. Some possibilies for this would be WikiProject Tropical cyclones, WikiProject Entertainment or WikiProject Sport-- jwanders ^Talk 22:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the latter of your 2 ideas (i.e. exchanging articles with another project). I agree that members of a roads project generally shouldn't review roads articles. My main reason is this, it's one thing to write an article about roads that a roadgeek would say is a good article. It's an entirely different thing to write an article about roads that a gamer would say is a good article. Yes, in thoery the GA criteria is set and it should as long as everybody sticks to that criteria we should all be fine. But in reality it never works that way. I'm more than happy to trade articles with one of the projects you mention. Davemeistermoab ( talk) 01:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could arrange a " GA twinning" sort of arrangement with WP:TROP, whom we share some common editors with? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with that, I am a former member of that project before my USRD days. -- Holderca1 ^talk 11:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so we both do. Anyway, I'm sure they're willing to help. I'll see if I can make arrangements. ^Mitch 32 ^contribs 11:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I probably wouldn't be interested in reviewing any storm articles, even if I did care for the process. On the other hand, something more closely related like rail might be better, but they might have no qualms about intra-project reviewing. -- NE2 12:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, absolutely nothing wrong with reviewing other transport articles. -- Holderca1 ^talk 14:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think, if we can get our quality up to where they are at (they have a lot of FAs), then we can do more reviewing of our own. -- Holderca1 ^talk 15:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started picking up about an article or two at a time. The difference from two years ago to now is substantial, in that there are measurable criteria that can be checked and fulfilled before passing it as a GA. That was the main reason I'd stopped reviewing articles before. — Rob ( talk) 18:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's also not forget that we need reviewers at WP:USRD/A/ACR as well. -- Holderca1 ^talk 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been intending to review the ACR backlog for quite some time... but school got in the way. I'll try to get to it over the weekend. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NE2's most recent response to me above sparked something else in my mind, but to avoid the danger of starting a tangent, I figured it was more deserving of its own section header.

In my previous incarnation, when we were arguing over the exit list guide, I was a big believer that when it came to formatting, exit lists and junction lists were exactly the same thing. That is, there's no reason they should be formatted differently. That being said, they are in fact, two very different things. An exit list is a list of exits on a freeway. A junction list is a list of junctions with other state highways.

The question I'm having is when NE2 says, "US 9 is pretty good; the main issue is the colors. There also seem to be some interchanges missing near the north end." You're absolutely right, there's an interchange for New Brunswick Avenue, and possibly one or two others, that isn't listed. Because it's not an exit list, it's a junction list. It's a junction list for a 136-mile road that happens to have a 3-mile long freeway section at the northern end. So at what point does a road become a freeway that needs to have every exit listed, and when is it just a regular old highway? For that matter, what is an exit? Do we need to list CR 522 just because it's grade-separated, or can we leave it off since it's not a state highway?

On a loosely related topic, at the A-class review for New Jersey Route 18, NE2 said he added all the junctions for the non-freeway part at jughandles. Well, at first I thought, that's a great idea. However, during the recent discussion, I realized Race Track Road, Tices Lane, and Eggers Street aren't actually major intersections worthy of inclusion on the list.

So what do we do? Where do we draw the line between an exit list and a junction list? -- Kéiryn 17:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well for Texas articles I have used the same format for both because to me, the only difference between the two is what you list. For roads that have both freeway and non-freeway sections, like Texas State Highway Loop 1604, I have it all in one table. The freeway section has all the exits listed and for the non-freeway, just the state highways. -- Holderca1 ^talk 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If on the actual roadway it has a standard exit gore sign (even if unnumbered) and possibly advance warning signs for the exit, then it is an exit and should be included. If it is not labeled as an exit, then include it only if it is a state highway. -- Polaron | Talk 17:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that guideline is that it requires me to drive down the road to look at signage before I edit an article. -- Kéiryn 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if the only reason there is an interchange is because one of the roads goes along railroad tracks or a river, than don't include it as long as it isn't a state highway. -- Holderca1 ^talk 18:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lemme try this again with a much shorter question.

Even if a highway is primarily a surface route, every freeway section should have a full exit list. Yes or no? -- Kéiryn 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking if it should be a separate table? I wouldn't do separate lists but one combined list called a junction list. -- Holderca1 ^talk 19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking whether it's necessary to list every exit, or whether it can be treated as a normal junction list (just listing other state highways). -- Kéiryn 19:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would list every exit. -- Holderca1 ^talk 20:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I understanding this? If a road is limited access, meaning it has exits, you list all the exits. If it is not limited access (whether it be divided highway, two lane or two track!) then its a junction list with Interstates/USRs/and SHs that intersect it. If its both, then you do a combo, which I've seen done on some articles. Stratosphere| Talk 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be the consensus. The issue is that in the past, a lot of people, myself included, were not doing a combo-style for roads that were both, instead choosing to ignore the freeway section. -- Kéiryn 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also use a multi-column row to show where the freeway sections start and stop. -- Holderca1 ^talk 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should matter if the intersecting road is a state highway - of course if it is a state highway, the intersection is major, but if it's not, the intersection can still be major. For instance, California State Route 82#Major intersections includes all county routes, and at least one intersection per city, since it is basically the "main street" for the peninsula. On California State Route 149#Major intersections, since there are only three intersections, I listed them all. -- NE2 02:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa nelly. From the very beginning... and I mean very beginning -- before I joined Wikipedia and when the full junction list was still in the infobox -- the junction list has existed for the sole purpose of listing the junctions with other state highways. Not for listing a selection of unnumbered streets. To answer your next question, I don't have a clue why the section is called "Major intersections" instead of "Junctions with other state highways", other than length. But it's meant for other state highways, not for roads that you subjectively think might be major. -- Kéiryn 03:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The only exception to that I can think of is if the road has an article. -- Holderca1 ^talk 03:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that different states have different practices with respect to state highways. Maybe in Kentucky it would make sense to list only state highways, but in California there are a lot of major county roads, including a whole expressway system near San Jose. -- NE2 03:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are numbered, yes? If a non-numbered road has a junction with another it should only be listed if it is accessed off an exit on a limited access freeway. I think notability is a reasonable guideline for this. If it is unnumbered, it should probably be left out both for brevity and the fact that, unless it has its own article or is, itself, a limited access freeway, it probably isn't important enough to be in the list. Stratosphere| Talk 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Stratosphere. There are obviously exceptions to the "state highways only" rule, and I'm sorry if I implied that there weren't. Freeways, and for the most part expressways too, are definitely worthy of inclusion on the list. The Grand Central Parkway for example always goes on the list, even though in terms of numbering it's just a reference route. As for non-expressway county routes, I'd think that for the most part we should avoid listing them, unless there's some need to list it. For example, if the road goes through a whole lot of nothing, and it's the only junction in a town. -- Kéiryn 04:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

M62 motorway is today's featured article. Will ^{( talk)} 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding work! Keep it up. -- Holderca1 ^talk 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope to see I-35 or whatever the FA that the M62 article outvoted last month on the main page - hey, roadcruft is roadcruft ;) Will ^{( talk)} 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be a while before I-355 makes it onto the main page. :-) M62 was waiting for about 2 years. There are about 750 featured articles waiting to be featured on the main page, and another 2-3 get approved each day. — Rob ( talk) 20:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Scale it down by a power of ten and you're right - it got promoted exactly 3 months ago (to the minute, nearly). Will ^{( talk)} 20:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now - it had been 3 years since a road article was the featured article of the day. (There just aren't that many.) — Rob ( talk) 21:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We tried getting Kansas Turnpike on the main page once, but it was voted down due to an issue with one of the sources. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but why doesn't the Kansas Turnpike article have an exit list? -- Holderca1 ^talk 21:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It did, but SPUI was able to dig up history for each individual interchange, so we created the Interchanges section to go cover each interchange in-depth. This meant there was no real reason to have an exit list anymore. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you could try to get the I-355 article on for Nov 11 or Dec 24. Will ^{( talk)} 21:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Without an apparent explanation, User:Freewayguy moved {{ 3di 69}} to {{ I-69 aux}}. This seems like it will break the entire group of {{ 3di}} templates that were carefully crafted. I think we need to move it back, any thoughts. -- KelleyCook ( talk) 20:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire 3di template group is a mess right now and should be cleaned up at some point. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, copyrighted photos can be used under fair use if a free version can't be reproduced. So would an photo such as this be acceptable to use on the I-37 article? -- Holderca1 ^talk 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably so. You should see if the copyright holder would be willing to have it relicensed under GFDL, a Creative Commons license, or even into the public domain first, though. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a TxDOT photo, so trying to make such a request to a government agency would probably be pretty difficult. -- Holderca1 ^talk 03:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not as difficult as you might think. Imzadi's been working on getting a photo from MDOT released. Other than having to deal with a bit of bureaucracy, he's been pretty successful. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends how useful it is for the article. Personally I don't see what it would show that a current photo like [9] would not; it's a pretty typical construction job. Fair use is for stuff like Image:05231963 ChicagoRiver.JPG that is so different from what is there now that someone who knows only the current configuration would learn more than they would from text describing the road. -- NE2 03:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of our history sections are devoid of photographs is the logic behind my thinking. -- Holderca1 ^talk 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Because I can" isn't really a good defense. You can include a current photo of something that the history section is describing without it being out of place. -- NE2 04:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How would a current photo depict the construction of the highway? -- Holderca1 ^talk 04:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need to depict its construction? Were any particularly novel techniques used? -- NE2 04:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Highly doubtful. It is a copyrighted photograph of a construction photograph of a non-unique interchange. So that particular image adds nothing to any article that couldn't be found elsewhere. -- KelleyCook ( talk) 03:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How are you going to find 50 year old pictures elsewhere? -- Holderca1 ^talk 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need 50 year old photos if current ones will serve the same purpose. -- NE2 04:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But they don't, that's the whole point. It would be different if the it was a 50 year photo of the highway completed. -- Holderca1 ^talk 04:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Information-wise, what does the construction photo convey that a current photo won't? -- NE2 05:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it just this photo in particular or all construction photos. I just linked one of many just as an example. -- Holderca1 ^talk 11:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Most generic construction photos are probably not fine. If it shows a unique method of construction or something else that no longer exists, it may be valid. It's not a construction photo, but [10] would probably be fair use in Gulf Freeway as an example. I looked at the photos on [11] and none look unique enough to use. -- NE2 12:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, except for the ones taken before 1964 which are now in the PD. -- Holderca1 ^talk 13:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily; they had to be published before 1964 (and not renewed). -- NE2 14:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you know the published date? Would it be safe to assume that if the photo has a year on it, that is the published date as in this photo? [12] -- Holderca1 ^talk 14:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No; it might be unpublished. If you take a photo it's not published unless you share it with the world. I'm not sure how that applies to public agencies where you can go to the offices and look - does that count as publication? I suggest you contact the TexasFreeway webmaster or TxDOT. The one definite exception is the scans of Texas Highways magazine: you can be sure that these were published. And remember Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. - scanning does not create a new copyright; the only copyright in the scan is that in the original. -- NE2 17:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not argueing that the picture isn't cool or unique to that particular intersection. I'm saying what the Wiki fair-use rules: there are zillions of uncopyrighted 50 year old road construction photographs around, so that particular picture couldn't possibly add any information that requires THAT PARTICULAR COPYRIGHTED PHOTO to any road article except an article that deals explicitly and only about construction of the intersection of I-10 & I-37 (which of course doesn't exist). Read the WP:NONFREE rules, they are very specific. As mentioned before, your best bet is to appeal to TxDOT. -- KelleyCook ( talk) 04:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, there is an article for I-37 and I-10. -- Holderca1 ^talk 04:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member of the WikiProject Articles for Creation. We validate and create articles for users who do not have accounts or want to submit articles anonymously. Recently, a submitter has been providing a ton of redirect requests regarding various state routes in California. Most of these have been pretty simple, such as CA 18 to California State Route 18. However, today, there has been a number of requests for redirects for various named interchanges to be added as well. Some examples of these include Daniel D. Mikesell interchange to Interstate 15 in California and William E. Leonard interchange to Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California). I really can't find much online that refers to these named interchanges and it really doesn't seem that these redirects serve much purpose to me. However, before we created or declined them, I wanted to ask you all at the US Roads WikiProject what you thought about these proposed redirect requests. How do they fall within your guidelines and style? -- ShinmaWa^{( talk)} 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For anyone else reading, it's the 75 IP... personally I don't see the harm in redirecting, but with interchanges you really have to think about which of the two roads you redirect to. (Probably the newer one because the construction of the interchange would figure more prominently in its history.) -- NE2 17:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree that there's no harm in redirecting for the most part, and he's welcome to create all the odd redirects he wants. I've even been using a couple recently like SR 7 (WA) (may God rest SPUI's soul). But I think you just pointed out the harm in creating a redirect in this specific case. If you have to think about which of the two should be the target, then the answer is neither. -- Kéiryn 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the significance of having every named interchange listed here in Wikipedia. ArcAngel ( talk) 01:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I realize this question hasn't been posted for very long, but the initial consensus appears to be that 1) It doesn't serve any purpose and 2) it may be harmful because an interchange redirect can only link to one of the two roads in that interchange. Based on this initial consensus I'm going to decline all of those requests now with a note to "75 IP" to discuss it here. -- ShinmaWa^{( talk)} 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My initial leaning is no, but User:jnestorius brings up an interesting argument here. Please leave comments on that page - thanks! — Rob ( talk) 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply, the entire argument is based on a statement to the article which is wrong. I-84 (west) is not a discontiguous segment of the same road. It is a different Interstate with the same number. -- KelleyCook ( talk) 05:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

crossposted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision#Time to move on?; please reply there

After reading through the Mantanmoreland case, I'm starting to doubt whether ArbCom really will help us here. I think what we really need is some sort of structured discussion. If I were to request a mediation on the topic of project scopes - or a larger topic - would the "major players" here all participate in good faith and listen to all sides? -- NE2 04:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is that case relevant? The apparent ability of ArbCom to handle one case has no bearing on its past decisions. -- Core desat 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision#Time to move on? -- NE2 05:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of possibly starting a discussion on the scope issue. It's kind of silly to just leave the scope section blank for this long. If we're all willing to not go nuts if the "other side wins", I think ArbCom would be okay with it. Anyone have any reasons why we shouldn't/couldn't do that? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, yes. Actually implementing as a result of the discussion - can't happen until Arbcom closes the case. On that note - I'm all for discussing it :)  — master son ^{T - C} 22:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think if we were all in agreement (meaning NE2 agreed with the plan as well), ArbCom would let us implement it. If everyone was on board except NE2, then we'd have to get their input on it. Discussion is taking place ↓↓↓ down there. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

{{ CAScenic}} and {{ CAFES}} have been sent to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 2. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 09:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a list somewhere that lists road websites like AARoads or Kurumi that shouldn't be used as a source in articles. -- Holderca1 ^talk 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really that I recall - though I think one should be placed on the main WP page.  — master son ^{T - C} 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure such a list should be made, honestly. If the webmasters of those sites run across it and see their site under the heading "Unreliable sources", they could, not understanding the Wikipedia meaning of 'reliable source', take offense at it. I think that we should have close ties with the rest of the roadgeek community, because we'd ideally like to encourage well-known members of the roadgeek community to become editors someday. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be okay if it is under the heading of websites that are self-published sources. We could put something in there to make it as PC as we can. Say that these websites do offer good information that can get you going in the right direction, but shouldn't be cited directly. We could also say that these sites are a good source of references and maps that can be used. I personally use these sites quite often to find additional resources. The only reason I brought this up is an article was put of for A-Class review and it used Kurumi extensively. -- Holderca1 ^talk 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an ethical concern ripe for the taking - is it wise to write based on the sources self-published sites use, without actually having seen the source? I.e., using Kurumi but citing the sources instead of Kurumi? (First glance suggests, obviously not, but you never know if it's gonna come up...) — Rob ( talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't cite a source I hadn't seen, but I suppose you could try and find it. -- Holderca1 ^talk 21:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WT:HWY#Highways at Commons 哦， 是吗？( O-person) 03:53, 05 March 2008 (GMT)

The project has its first featured list, List of Interstate Highways in Texas. It is also only the 5th featured list that is transport related, see Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Transport. -- Holderca1 ^talk 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Copy from WT:RFAR and the talk of the proposed decision page

Seeing as the Arbitration Committee has decided to abandon the Highways case (a shame, really) would they be open to suspending the case for 30 days so that a formal mediation can take place? If the mediation fails, then the case can be resumed. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the standard for naming decommissioned routes? Say for example State Highway 76 existed from 1945 until 1987, and a new route using the same number was designated in 1998. Would the article for the first route be at State Highway 76 (1987), State Highway 76 (1945), or State Highway 76 (1945-1987)? -- Holderca1 ^talk 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's what's currently done with Virginia, which is NE2's system List of primary state highways in Virginia. -- MPD ^{T / C} 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. -- Holderca1 ^talk 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If I have both years, I'd use Texas State Highway 76 (1945-1987). You can look through Category:Former numbered highways in the United States to see if there are any other ways it's been done. An important thing to remember is that if the TxDOT designation file says it was created in 1939, there's a pretty good chance it was created before 1939, so there I'd use (pre-1987) unless I knew for sure that (1939-1987) was correct. -- NE2 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the TxDOT files use the verbage "General redescription of Highway System" for highways that existed prior to the first mention in the designation files. Oddly though, for U.S. Highways, they do mention the years prior to 1939. -- Holderca1 ^talk 20:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)