![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
A user wants to change the design of the template. See Template talk:Interstates. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a few questions about {{ Jct}} and {{ Infobox road}}. With Jct, I don't remember it started pulling state-name Interstate shields, but it does now. And after what happened recently with those shields, I don't understand why it still calls them. So can we take a look at that? My second question is simpler. Can we make Infobox road able to display Future Interstate shields? We did it for Infobox Interstate, but then we got rid of that. If we can make it so "I" is replaced by "F" or "FI", then it can just call a future shield (provided one's available). Right now I just insert under "route" "XXX (Future)" which calls the shield, but it's not a solution. Any ideas for both? -- MPD T / C 20:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
marker_image
, given there are so few that are fully future. --
NE2
20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)I just wanted to explain what I was doing (not on behalf of USRD at all - this is my personal project). I am going through the B-class articles and seeing if they are truly at the (new) B-class standards. I am checking for three things:
I'm spending about 30 seconds reviewing each article and giving the benefit of the doubt, so I'm being pretty gracious. If I don't see any problems within 30 seconds, I leave it alone. However, I'm still demoting a lot of articles (mostly unsourced RDs or histories). Ouch... -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Now, alot of articles missing maps has a map now. We still have like 20 articles still have to get map.-- 57 Free ways 01:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Alot of them is small state highways. interstate articles seem to been slightly imporving. For copyditing is out of my ability.-- 57 Free ways 01:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now, it's pretty hard to find an article on a congressional district, unless one knows a) The name of the person holding the office, or b) the specific naming structure of Wikipedia's articles on them.
For me, it seems natural to search for, for example, "NC 8", to find the 8th congressional district of North Carolina. But that takes me to the article on NC Highway 8, an equally valid possibility.
I haven't brought this up on any other wikiprojects yet because I wanted to ask first, it would be really helpful if either the redirects were turned into dabs, or a hatnote were put at the top of the road articles directing people to the congressional district (or vice versa).
Thoughts? -- Golbez ( talk) 08:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I don't agree with NYSR splitting from USRD. The whole idea is silly (under our system, New York is its own country, among other things). But why in the world do we, non-members of NYSR, get to decide they must rejoin us? The decision should be left up to them. C L — 16:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you read User:Rschen7754/Wikistatus and shared a response to it. It talks about my perspective on USRD and things lately and how I honestly feel about that. If you are in a hurry, the bold statements are the conclusions and the "So what?" statements; the rest is how I arrived at them. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 09:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona State Route 48 -- NE2 11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that there are a large number of road-related images listed on User:AWeenieMan/furme/DFUI/Logos that will be deleted for lack of fair use rationales in the near future. Some people from this project may want to lend a hand with WP:FURME. MBisanz talk 03:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem I have noticed in State Route Naming Conventions. When the original polls were done in 2006 (see: WP:SRNC), no discussion was ever made of Pennsylvania and its system. Currently we have "Pennsylvania Route X, XX, XXX" when it should be "Pennsylvania State Route X, XX, XXX" because this naming convention we have violates PennDOT code and signage. Also to bonus this the secondary system in the state, quadrant routes - use "State" in their header. (See:the stub State Route 2010 (Erie County, Pennsylvania)). Why do we use State in one header and just Route X in another. Also, other than the contradiction with itself, the PennDOT system is and has been "State Route X, XX, XXX". I propose that we move all Pennsylvania mainline highways to the respective "Pennsylvania State Route X, XX, XXX" headers. There need be no change in the quadrant route system, since they are like county routes and are treated that way. However, I do see a fault in the naming convention and it should be changed.Mitch32( UP) 22:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, about the two state routes that do not match (283 and 380) - they would use the State Route header - but would not be PA State Route 400 and PA State Route 300 - they would be PA State Route 283 and PA State Route 380, but still be mentioned in the article about the difference.Mitch32( UP) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
See relevant discussion here. -- Son ( talk) 03:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been reminded that I owe a project-level triple crown to this project. Normally I do that by editing a visual symbol that relates to the project into the center of a triple crown. Suggestions, please? Tire treads come to mind. This is your crown (apologies for the delay) and I'd like to make it fun for you. Durova Charge! 22:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Could do an exit direction sign, with a crown where a shield would normally go, e.g.
![]() |
Three crowns would work just as well. Of course a white rounded border would be needed. An accurate arrow can be found in Image:USRD_ELG.svg. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Currently, there is no effective place to review lists before FAC. HWY PR is ignored. I propose that we should let lists be reviewed at ACR, which gets enough publicity. It has been suggested that we add the designation that the list has been reviewed by ACR to the talk page. Any suggestions? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if a review system is needed; yes I understand your thoughts on it, but usually with FLCs you have plenty of time to fix the issues brought up before its time for it to be passed/failed. -- Admrboltz ( talk) 22:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 95#Infobox revisited and [2]. I think this rule has to be relaxed to allow for reasonable variation. Why are we excluding junctions with in the major cities of Philadelphia and Washington just because they don't fit neatly into the guideline? That guideline was written primarily to address the infobox from getting too long, which is not the issue here. If the only reason preventing adding these junctions is that the WikiProject, as currently written, implies that these shouldn't be listed, then that's simply not valid. That rule has to go. -- Polaron | Talk 04:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose rewording the relevant guideline to something like:
Note:
- Only major junctions go into the Interstate routebox. These would be junctions with other Interstate Highways and/or junctions located in or near the central cities of major metropolitan areas with other important highways such as turnpikes and U.S. routes. Listing of multiple junctions in the same location should be avoided if possible. If any routebox has over 10 junctions, then some of the junctions need to be removed.
- Auxillary Interstate Highways have more lenient rules in general because of their shorter nature. Junctions with major state roads may be added within reason. The 10-junction limit still applies regardless.
- For certain cross-country Interstate Highways where the above would result in over 10 junctions (e.g. I-10, I-40, I-75, I-80, I-90, and I-95), a good rule of thumb to follow is to include only junctions with Interstate Highways ending in '5' or '0' and/or those in or near the central cities of major metropolitan areas. In any case, the 10-junction limit should be followed.
-- Polaron | Talk 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
California State Route 5 directs people to California State Route 35, to which 5 was redesignated in 1964.
However, the list of California state highways links 5 to Legislative Route 5 (California pre-1964), which redirects to I-580, and has no mention of route 5.
Is this correct, or does Legislative Route 5 need to be re-redirected to Route 35? -- Golbez ( talk) 23:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Recently there have been some votes at ACR saying "Support - good job!" Under the current system, they are counted as support votes, regardless of whether the article fits the criteria or not. What should we do regarding this issue? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose that this be put into place for all new ACRs, if there are no objections. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 09:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Diego Freeway -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Are there any other metropolitan areas where the road articles are in a better shape we could use as a baseline? California is the only state I'm aware of where there is such a mismatch between the named freeways and the numbers on those routes. Phoenix has different names for parts of I-10 and I-17 but to the best of my knowledge there isn't a named freeway that jumps numerical designations, for example. Dave ( talk) 01:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has an interest, look at a rename proposal for Category:Two-lane freeways. It needs some additional comments. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Is the preference in the main highway article, such as currently at Interstate 5, to link to state-detail articles in the infobox or to link to the main article? For example, on the main I-5 article above, to link to Interstate 10 in California as opposed to just Interstate 10? Right now the current situation is that most of the articles I've looked at point to state-detail pages, provided one is available of course.
I ask because here's the situation:
I don't care which way, I'd just like to know what the current opinions are. But can we all agree to fix {{ jct}} so that we can use it in other situations when state-name shields are not acceptable because of their small size (i.e. exit lists)? -- MPD T / C 05:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thing about our state-specific shields, though, is that they're usually based on how the state actually makes its shields. Compare—
—the second shield is based on ODOT specs and while, yes, you can't make out the state name at 20px, there are other differences; the numbers are larger and closer together, and you can tell that difference at 20px. (I have to admit that since I've lived here so long the Oklahoma shield just looks so much more "right" to my eyes, even though I know the left one is technically the correct shield.)
I do agree that on national articles it looks a lot better to do the national shield across the board rather than have a smattering of different shields—
—
Scott5114
↗
[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]
20:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I think all for all exit lists using {{ jct}} should have the neutral shields. Again, it's too hard to read the state name. For use in {{ infobox road}}, I would go so far as to use only state-specific shields regardless of whether the state does or not. Whatever we decide as a consensus should be consistent across every state and enumerated plainly so there's no mistaking the intent. -- Fredddie ™ 06:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
All now redirect to Template:Infobox road/Interstate/shield Interstate. -- NE2 07:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Can somebody clsoe this discussion?-- FR W Y 23:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do not close this discussion. I will comment within the hour. Sswonk ( talk) 23:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I am closing this thread. There is further, earlier material located in Archive 14. The consensus there appears to be in opposition to changing any existing generic shields to state shields, which is why I responded to Fredddie above. Please read that thread carefully before continuing at WP:USRD/S. Sswonk ( talk) 06:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge – Cumberland, Maryland)#Notability discussion. -- Polaron | Talk 16:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed recently that someone changed the state specific interstate shields in the infobox junction lists. Can this be changed back? As it stands now it's inaccurate using the generic shields. I'd change it back myself but I don't have the knowledge of where and how the change was made. Gateman1997 ( talk) 23:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Virginia Route 817 – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Currently ACR and GAN are backlogged. Articles are remaining there for too long. I am proposing a few changes needed to address this issue:
Notes: This would only apply to new nominations; nominations already made would be unaffected. Also, item #3 only carries the weight of a suggestion; an editor can nominate more than 5 USRD articles at a time, but it would not carry the blessing of the project. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's a radical idea. NE2, maybe you should start reviewing some articles at both forums? Seriously though, there is one editor with almost a dozen current GANs. My personal experience is that when there are that many nominations in one category from one editor, I tend to skip ALL of them and do reviews for other editors. As much as I nominate at GAN, I try to review there too. Same with ACR, although my focus has been more GAN-oriented with the current county challenge. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 04:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 337 (Florida) -- NE2 01:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
There were a few ACRs that were voided after NYSR left the project back in September. Now that they have returned, what should be done with these ACRs? In my opinion, they should not be subjected to a full ACR; but they never did meet the ACR qualifications, so there should be some form of review. Any comments? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 November 26 - random images related to U.S. roads -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Per an ongoing discussion at WT:OR I have proposed an essay/policy on the appropriate usage of maps as sources in wikipedia articles. The draft is here User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox, please discuss any objections and could someone with more experience provide input on what is next? Dave ( talk) 21:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Do we consider these notable enough for their own articles? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scenic route -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Q: There is a big push in Wikproject Utah to tag all articles with geo coordinates. I suspect this is a co-ordinated effort as wikiproject Nevada also seems to have a smaller push. Even some of the articles without literal co-ordinates are getting tagged, (i.e. mountain ranges are getting tagged with the co-ordinates of either the geographical center or alongside a prominent peak, etc.) Should road articles be geo-tagged? I.E. should we pick a bend in Logan Canyon and tag U.S. Route 89 in Utah or even U.S. Route 89 with those co-ordinates? or should roads be tagged by their southern/western termious? or not at all? Dave ( talk) 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Most roads articles have a list of junctions. An alternative might be to put coordinates for the more major (or even all for short routes) of these junctions. Then one can use the geogrouptemplate to show a map of all the coordinates. -- Polaron | Talk 22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
No, no, no, no, no. C L — 05:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah every junction would be overkill. I think it's between the center of a route or the endpoints, my preference being the center. Dave ( talk) 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the point. There are two purposes for adding coordinates to articles:
The former is not generally helpful for linear features, at least those without well-defined division points (e.g. passenger railroads with stations, which have their own articles anyway; canals with locks; and possibly freeways with interchanges). Usually the reader would be better off picking a community the road passes through, going to its article, and then locating the road based on the route description. The main exception is for places related to the highway that won't have separate articles, such as Ridge Route#Description - but these are coordinates of locations mentioned, not of the road itself. I would make an exception for cases like New Jersey Route 59, where the road is essentially a railroad crossing.
The latter is completely and utterly useless for a road. If a service can display our coordinate data, it should be able to show a street map, which will actually show where the road goes and not just one point on it. If we could include and services would support full linear data, it would be a different issue entirely, but that's a different issue entirely
and would probably be done top-down (I could probably convert the GIS data I created for several states, for instance). --
NE2
05:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
←The wider issue of coordinates for roads and other linear features is under discussion, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear. See also the table at M6 motorway#Junctions. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 15#Category:Bannered Interstate Highways. — CharlotteWebb 11:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Future_road -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 03:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I just listed Category:Interstate highways concurrent with another numbered highway in its entirety at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 19#Category:Interstate highways concurrent with another numbered highway in its entirety. Feel free to comment -- KelleyCook ( talk) 21:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Currently there is an ACR and peer review open for California State Route 78. The ACR has been dormant for a while and needs some comments. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Am I correct in saying this? [4] -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 24 - {{ Number roads}} and {{ Roads in Alabama}} and {{ Project U.S. Roads/Newsletter}}. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Howdy, A couple of events with Interstate 70 in Utah appearing on the main page has brought this issue back into the spotlight.
Background (for those not familiar): Per WP:BOLDTITLE (explained in more detail at WP:Stop bolding everything), articles with a descriptive title, rather than a literal title, do not need to have the title repeated in bold in the lead sentence. The intent is to avoid having redundant wording in the lead sentence or having text which is both bolded and linked (which is a frequent violation of the WP:MOS). This has resulted in most articles about a single state section of a multi-state highway having no bold title, which has attracted attention at both WP:FAC and frequent reverts from people not understanding the policy or reasoning. Examples include the current iterations of Interstate 15 in Arizona (no bold title) or Interstate 15 in California (in violation of the MOS, with text both bolded and linked).
The Meat: While I-70 was on the main page, confusion by those not familiar with US highways resulted in a change in the lead, which may result in a compromise to end this controversy. Some readers left comments on the talk page explaining how they were confused, because I-70 is in Pennsylvania, etc. so what's this article saying about Utah. The result is the lead of the article now reads:
Interstate 70 (I-70) is a highway in the United States connecting Utah and Maryland. The Utah section runs east–west for.....
Interstate 70 no longer requires a link, because of the link in the disclaimer. And the lead could be changed to bold text, to satasfy those with an urgent need to bold something. I.E.
Interstate 70 (I-70) is a highway in the United States connecting Utah and Maryland. The Utah section runs east–west for.....
What say ye? Should this be our new standard? At a minimum I agree the disclaimer is appropriate and should be incorporated project wide on similar articles. Dave ( talk) 18:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No. -- NE2 23:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Should San Diego Freeway be a disambiguation page, like [5]? I don't know why it links to I-405 when SD Freeway also includes the segment of I-5. Mgillfr ( talk) 18:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I voted re-direct on the AfD for San Diego Freeway. I stand by that vote. IF someone were to write a solid B class article about the San Diego Freeway that was not redundant with the I-405 article, I would probably vote to keep it. However, every iteration of the article so far, has been redundant to, or directly lifted from, the I-405 article. I don't see much value in a disambiguation page, as the first paragraph of I-405 clears up any ambiguity pretty well. My advice, if you feel passionately that San Diego Freeway deserves its own article, develop the article in a sandbox, then move it over. If it was well written, sourced, and not redundant with I-405, it would not be deleted. That would be quite a challenge. Dave ( talk) 01:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm going to start it to get it over with (since I don't think its been covered here yet). I've been doing a lot of work on the what is now the Special route page, and I think this term should be applied as the preferred term (unless it just wont fit) throughout the Wikipedia articles dealing with the topic for a variety of reasons that I will cover. So, you're asking, what is the problem? Well, everyone knows that there is something in common with Business routes, Bypass routes, Temporary routes, Alternate routes, Scenic routes, Connector routes, etc, etc, but it is rare to find a source that gives the exact term. So, after much research, though not Original Research, I've determined that SPECIAL ROUTE is current correct term. The unfinished discussion at Talk:Special route provided the starting point. Here are my points:
"Bannered" is a neologism, popularized by Robert Droz on his website: Alternate U S Highways: Bannered Routes... Mapsax ( talk) 20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to add my two cents... I have to agree with Mapsax that "Bannered Highway" is a neologism. I have maintained my own highways-related websites for more than a decade, have been a "student" of transportation systems for three decades and work alongside transportation planners on a daily basis, and the only place I have ever seen "Bannered Highway" is in conjunction with Robert Droz' website, as noted above... CBessert ( talk) 04:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
So, there's my case to WP:USRD. Go to Talk:Special route to see full comments from others. Post new comments here. Hopefully, there won't be much fuss on this. -- Triadian ( talk) 08:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/L3121_road - might be interesting. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an announcement for the USRD/CRWP Cup contest, which aims to improve USRD/CRWP article quality and participation. All editors are welcome to participate. See User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup for more info. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The state I'd drop would be the 3 road articles in California I'm currently working on (2 to GA, 1 is a GA but could improvement), does that affect your decision =-)
Now that the newsletter is no more, and has been replaced with a blog that is updated as needed, is there still a purpose to the News section of the portal? I observe that the news is not updated as frequently as the blog, and when it is, the news item is also listed on the blog. Should we redirect this section? Dave ( talk) 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
While editing recently, I noticed I used the word "route" four times in one sentence. It's hard to use the common synonym "highway", so anyone know of some words that might help out? -- Triadian ( talk) 01:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The idea of a USRD meetup has been floated a few times, and nobody really came to a consensus on a location, but after the Chicago meet (which several USRD members attended) I have been kicking around the idea of a road meet in Oklahoma City. Since several members of the project have expressed interest in attending such a meet to me on IRC, what I'm planning on doing is running a "normal" road meet, then after dinner do a USRD workshop. This will have the benefit of attracting normal roadgeeks to the meet so we can possibly "recruit" them (hey, more editors would always be a help!)
OKC has never had a road meet before, so this will be a great opportunity to take a look at several of the interesting things around the city (by "interesting" I will usually mean "of a level of quality that will make most roadgeeks phone MoDOT and apologize for all the nasty things they said about them" ;) ) In addition, there is an opportunity to explore the I-40 realignment south of downtown OKC (which will be handled in a style similar to the I-64 tour at the St. Louis meet) and the first stages of the I-35 widening project in Norman set to kick off in March.
So as to attract more people from around the country, the meet will take place over two days. If you attended the Chicago meet, you'll be familiar with what I'm planning. So far the tentative dates are June 26th and 27th, a Friday and Saturday. I will probably stick with these dates unless there is a huge number of people who would want to attend but couldn't because of the dates.
I will be maintaining a webpage containing the most recent plans for the meet. It's at [9]—this page contains the dates and also the basic list of things we will be taking a look at. If you're interested in attending the meet, it makes for a handy bookmark. For those of you who like clinching interstates and counting counties, attending both days of the meet will clinch you two interstates (I-235 and I-240) and five counties. If you have suggestions as to stuff you'd like to have added to the tour, feel free to make suggestions and I'll see how we can fit it in.
Thanks for your interest! — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Are edits such as this compliant with WP:ELG? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
See County Road 337 (Florida) (2nd nomination). -- Son ( talk) 14:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 97 (Rockland County, New York) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
[10] Any thoughts? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The WP:USRD/ELG says that service areas and bodies of water are acceptable within reason. Other items seen in USRD article are named bridges, tunnels, freeway/non-freeway boundaries, and state lines. What else is acceptable? mountain passes? At issue is the A Class Review for U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. In the current iteration of the article, there is a separate table listing the named mountain passes crossed by the highway, as there are 17, too many to detail in prose. The suggestion has been made to merge this table with the major intersections table. A crude mock up of what this table would look like is at User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox. It needs work, it was a quick merge of the two tables. Please compare this with the article and provide feedback. Dave ( talk) 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
County Route 35 (Warren County, New York) contains the following:
Now, if you look at our National Bridge Inventory article, "many records within the NBI were inaccurate or out of date". In addition to being a large government database, and therefore already presumed to have typos and other such errors, we have a reliable source stating that these errors are common. I removed this sentence, and was reverted. So I'm taking it here for more input. Do we want to go down the road of listing errors in databases, maps, or other products that refer to the road? -- NE2 16:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it notable, NO. Is it worth fighting about, NO. I casually suggest that both editors show a bit more maturity here. Dave ( talk) 17:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think an apparent error in the NBI database is worth noting unless CR 35 actually is old NY 35. Either way it's still kinda trivia and not really important to note. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
(moved from WT:USRD/MTF)
See User:Xenon54/Map tutorial. If it's possible, I'd like someone to check over it before I add it to WP:USRD/MTF. Thanks. Xenon54 ( talk) 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I wrote a program that generates the leaderboard automatically; it will now update every week. Please look over the leaderboard and make sure there are no errors. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I was discussing Wikipedia off-wiki and someone brought up that he'd like to see our articles include AADT data. While a few of our articles (usually FA-caliber) include this information, it's missing from the vast majority of our articles. I certainly think it's on-topic and could be included in articles, but the question is whether we should have a big push to get this included in the majority of articles (i.e. make it a requirement or at least a very strong suggestion for ascension up the class ladder).
If we are going to include it, question is, what do we do with it? Traffic counts vary at different locations along the route, of course. We could add two lines to the infobox to denote the high and low AADT and their locations. We could try working into the route description (possibly difficult to do since it would tend to make the writing formulaic). Or we could use a table and put it in its own section. Something like this...
Location | AADT |
---|---|
Vistafield | 12,000 |
Blagojeville | 9,200 |
Lupupsenburg | 10,100 |
Hoosin | 4,200 |
Saxeton | 950 |
Additions could include highlighting the low and high AADT in different colors. We could also float the table in the route description in place of the mileage table that's around in the national route articles instead of putting in its own section.
Another idea is to add an AADT column to the junction list. This would be less flexible because AADTs are not always collected at junctions.
What do you guys think? More work than it's worth? Or is it a good idea? Which one of these ideas is best, or do you have better ones of your own? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I've put AADT data in 2 articles, Interstate 70 in Utah, and Interstate 80 in Nevada, both as passing comments in the route description. Of the two I guess it does add some value. I'm working on 2 articles currently U.S. Route 50 in Nevada, which needs one more review at ACR (hint hint wink wink), and California State Route 14. I'll try the same as an experiment on those two and see how it goes. Dave ( talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 10:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this would be cool: what do you all say? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 09:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
For the last few months it seems that I have been the person behind trying to make sure GANs and ACRs are passed in a timely manner and that we don't get creamed at FAC. I have reviewed dozens of GANs over the last few months and was the primary person reviewing them before the Cup challenge. I was the one who made sure ACR kept moving and that it remained effective over the last few months when people just ignored it.
But when I try to get my own article reviewed through ACR people won't even tell me what the problems are with it. That stupid ACR has been open since OCTOBER 27. That is INEXCUSABLE. Furthermore, because of this and because few USRD people have commented on its FACs or peer reviews, it has failed FAC twice due to inactivity. On the second review, people didn't even fully review the article.
Therefore, effective immediately, I am withdrawing my participation in all GAN reviews, ACR reviews, and FAC reviews. I see no reason why I should work to review articles when I can't even get my own articles reviewed. As I have been the one propping up ACR for the last few months and reviewing a large percentage of GAN articles, ACR will probably collapse and GAN will get extremely backlogged. I'll leave it to you guys to figure out how to fix it. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I've always liked the idea of the articles you guys create about roads and highways, but it's taken me a long time to fit that sort of documentation in to my idea of what an encyclopedia is.
And what I've finally come up with surprised me a little bit. The sort of work you're doing here is actually in my estimation a form of what may be the most ancient type of encyclopedia in human history: the periplus or way-guide, which was a type of record created by the Phoenicians, Hellenic Greeks, and Romans that would contain a description of what was to be found if a traveller followed a particular road or coastline.
In particular, an article that lists out the highway exits or towns and cities a road passes through is especially similar to a periplus. If you'd care to see an example, I transcribed The Periplus of the Euxine Sea at Wikisource a while back.
Way to go, ladies and gentlemen. Kudos to you for linking Wikipedia in to one of the oldest human endeavors! -- ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
If putting a highway article up for GA review,....are maps necessary or just nice to have? Can an article missing a map fail? Or is it the same as images just good to have if available Kind Regardsn SriMesh | talk 03:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Recently, Hmains did an AWB run that removed the categories "U.S. Highways in X" and "Interstate Highways in X" from the category "State highways in X" and placed all three in "Roads in X". Looking at the original state of the category hierarchy, it appears that there was no universal usage across all states of placing the U.S. Highway and Interstate Highway categories under the state highway category. I have undone the changes for the Northeastern states. We probably need to make a collective decision as to whether the Interstate and U.S. Highway categories should be subcategories of the state highway category or should all three be equal under the "Roads in X" category. Note that one category talk page already has a comment agreeing with the change by Hmains. -- Polaron | Talk 21:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
My restorations of the original category structure were reverted by User:Hmains. I have undone the reverts but we probably need more people to comment on what an appropriate category struture would be for articles under the scope of USRD. -- Polaron | Talk 22:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Some chump who is probably the 75 IP is messing with the thumbnail shields. C L — 18:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Interstate_74_in_Iowa -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Without going into great detail, because alot of what happened is based on a private matter at home (a few admins have been filled in with more detail), I do want to apologize for my brother-in-law's actions over the last couple weeks and anything that might have happened months ago. Please disregard any points he may have made in this discussion that no one has found applicable to NY 382 or anywhere else for that matter. I take full responsibility for being stupid and not paying closer attention to his online activity. Please understand though that he has a mental illness that causes more problems than some out of bounds editing on Wikipedia. I extend an apology to User:Mitchazenia for his actions hurting this article's FA discussion, and also to User:Rschen7754 for his comments to you. I'm sure there are others that deserve and apology, and if I find out anything else, I definitely pass one along to you.
Personally, I am here in good faith and have been actively working on NY route pages for over 2 years. I created pages for Rockland County Routes and been helping to construct articles for NY State Routes. I have also uploaded a ton of various pictures from my travels and have assigned them to their appropriate pages.
If you have further questions, feel free to drop a comment on my talk page or hit the email function. -- Airtuna08 ( talk) 20:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I know they're necessary, but This is over the edge. If the route's short, and doesn't cross anything more than Interstate, US, State, or a major county route - meaning the only relavent junctions are the termini - I suggest we leave the list off altogether. — master son T - C 01:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd require them, simply because we can include any relevant street names, control cities, etc in the junction box that shouldn't be there in the infobox - even if the route has only two junctions, the termini. C L — 18:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
On another note, CASH is becoming a mess - I do think tightening down ELG may be necessary to stop this. Does anyone like or dislike that solution, or have any others to put on the table? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there any way to integrate use of a to shield with the jct template to make the current, untemplated process a bit less tedious? C L — 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I know TO plates aren't required, but I thought they would be nice in articles like Utah State Route 126, where at first glance it appears we have state routes cosigned to interstates. C L — 00:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I've always found the "first glance" thing to be a problem. -- MPD T / C 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Could I have some comments on the following edit histories: [11], [12], [13]. This user is not listening to comments on his talk page and is automatically revert-warring with anyone who reverts his edits, even if his own edits go against Wikipedia guidelines. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
IMO, writing [[Utah State Route 67|SR-67]] rather than [[SR-67 (UT)|SR-67]] is unnecessary and inflates the byte count of the article. I see no reason why redirects shouldn't be used when wikilinking other articles - it's simply more convenient. Seriously, people must have OCD to worry about trivial matters such as unredirecting the redirects. Oh brother - C L — 01:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Interstate 95 in Baltimore, Maryland. We need to stop this now. Please let this be a dream... — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
For the record the author did discuss this before creating the article [14] Dave ( talk) 05:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with this? It's no different from Cross Bronx Expressway, Oklahoma City Crosstown Expressway, and so on... -- NE2 07:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we do need to sit and talk about subarticles. I'll start the discussion when I return. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You need to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 74 in Iowa as a sign of things to come. The whole route of an interstate is notable, there is no question of that really, but the notability of individual sections is questionable. I made the following comment in that debate...
"Just a few comments from across the pond, if I make any incorrect comparisons, feel free to bring me up on this. I'd like to compare this to our M4 motorway, despite going through two countries (For this I'm treating England and Wales as equivalent to US states), the article is more coherent and easy to follow on a single page, rather than "M4 motorway in England" and "M4 motorway in Wales". After looking at Interstate 74 and its sub articles, if they were all to be merged into the single article and copyedited, it'd make a great article. As it is, the information is scattered and hard to follow. I also notice a couple of the sub articles are redirects to different roads entirely, this just adds to the confusion. Until today I didn't really know anything about I-74, and after reading these articles that situation hasn't really changed! An unwritten rule we have over here seems to be that a single route has a single article. Just thought a few comments from an uninvolved user may be beneficial."
The above comment fits nicely into this discussion, just substitute I-74 for any other interstate. As a collective group I urge you to all pull together and bring these articles into one, then (and only then), consider creating sub articles for notable sections (not necessarily states).
The subject of exit lists was bought up above, and in my opinion, in both UK and US road articles they are far too large, and possibly fall into the Travel Guide section of WP:NOT. I'm currently working on a much simplified version for UK motorways (see User:Jenuk1985/Junctions, very much a work in progress) which you could possibly modify for US usage when I am done. Somebody also mentioned about setting up an external wiki for information like that... go for it! That's what we did, and now we have http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki, only a couple of months old, but filling up fast! Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I experimented by merging all the I-44 pages ( I-44, I-44 (TX), I-44 (OK), I-44 (MO)) together. The result is User:Scott5114/I-44, which is a halfway decent article, except for the massive exit lists. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I looked for the diff for about half an hour, but I think I made this comment over two years ago when WP:SRNC was taking place. (Wow, it's really creeping me out that it's been that long since SRNC! And that I'm coming up on my four-year anniversary of joining Wikipedia! Anyway...) Basically, I said back in 2006 when the state-detail articles started to appear that they should be used when the main interstate article cannot reasonably hold the information. In other words, something like Interstate 95 could be split into sub-articles, but something like Interstate 8 could not. The running joke was having an article for Interstate 95 in the District of Columbia... for an 0.11 mile segment of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
Two and a half years later, we have several state-detail articles. Until very recently, we even had Interstate 74 in Iowa, an article for a 5.36 mile segment of Interstate. Really? Do we actually need an article for such a short segment when it can be merged with something else?
In the back of my mind over the last two years, I have noticed that we have been getting more and more state-detail articles. I-74 IA finally brought this to the forefront of my attention.
If all of the main Interstate articles were B-class, I would be okay with the proliferation of state-detail articles. But that is not the case. Look at Interstate 80 - a "B-class article" that is basically a glorified route description. No history whatsoever. Granted, there is no need for a junctions table - but could we ever send this to FA?
My view is that we should start merging some of our state-detail articles back into the main Interstate articles. I don't agree with Route description of Interstate 80 and History of Interstate 80 because it makes it seriously harder for somebody to bring such articles to GA or FA or even B-class - they have to know / find information about all the states on the Interstates' path. We also risk destroying a few of Dave's GAs and FAs to do this as well.
The system we currently have is not entirely broken. We have had some of these state-detail articles on the Main Page. - I see no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Where's the rationale in mergine U.S. Route 151's sub articles together? The WI one was big as it is, and I can surely find a good chunk of information to turn Iowa's into a decent B-class article. — master son T - C 04:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Seeing that the USRD notability standard was both terrible outdated, and missing any guidance on the subject, I did some moderate changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability. Although I recognize that some may be opposed to the changes I made, these are more or less the prevailing wisdom I've seen at the AfD and similar debates I've seen up to this point. Dave ( talk) 02:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
We have no support votes for the selected article or selected picture for Portal:U.S. Roads. Please send in your votes quickly so the portal can be updated! -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
A) No one maintains it.
B) Not a lot (less than 1000) of views (
876 views in February)
C) No one really cares for it anymore. –
CG
02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I am updating the portal now. Are we still planning on doing something different for April 1? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Business routes of Interstate 5. We need to stop this now. Please let this be a dream... -- NE2 01:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I am proposing that these two projects be merged into WP:USRD. Currently, their standards are incorporated into USRD, and those project pages are inactive. (I am NOT suggesting that state projects be merged into USRD). Are there objections? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Still supportive of the changes. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 06:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I know this is resolved now, but I'm just throwing in my approval. Originally it seemed the projects were grouped by highway type, with USRD's only purpose being to serve as the parent project. Over time, as the state highway projects evolved into projects covering all roads in their states, the grouping has become more per-jurisdiction. So this seems to be the logical conclusion of this trend, and also USRD can now serve its expected purpose of covering all roads on a national level. -Jeff (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The last couple days, I've been working on WP:USRD/R, and have a couple questions... First, is there a difference between redirect lists and completion lists? and Second, should the lists under USDR/R only have those roads which the redirects have not yet been completed?
I've been removing each route from it's list once the article and all redirects created, and it is listed on the "highways numbered XXX" list... I assumed this was what should be done, because (I assumed) the states that are redlinked on USRD/R have already been done... am I correct in doing so? should I be removing a road from the list once all redirects are finished, so that the list only shows those roads that still need redirects? - Adolphus79 ( talk) 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
While we are discussing New Jersey Route 180, I have to bring to attention another article that has its notability questioned, New York State Route 931F. This article is currently a GAN, and a previous editor who reviewed this article questioned its notability, placing a {{ notability}} tag at the top of this article and suggesting that it be merged into New York State Route 321. There are many well-written articles for New York reference routes that have reached GA status. I was just wondering if this article meets the requirements for notabiilty. It is well-referenced and uses historical maps and newspaper articles as sources rather than personal websites. I just want feedback so I can make a decision in whether to promote this article to GA or to possibly merge it into NY 321. Dough4872 ( talk) 15:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Everybody, Interstate 68 is about to fall off the end of the FAC queue, yet it has had no thorough review. Most of the votes are members of the USRD project that have just rubber-stamped a support vote. I think we need to get some real feedback and critiques up there fast or this might fail due to only having rubber-stamp approves. And yes, this is somewhat self-serving as I have a nomination behind this one =-) Dave ( talk) 14:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm just using these templates as it's easier to tell when an issue has been resolved. This does *not* mean that a discussion is archived or terminated; people can still comment. These templates are used at WP:ANI. Are there any objections to people adding them to sections here? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Would someone be willing to close out the CA 78 ACR? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The Articles section of this project page is out of date. We have FA's A's and GA's being made by project members at a rate now that this list is getting increasingly harder to maintain, and keep up to date. Should this section be pruned or eliminated entirely? Here's some random thoughts on the subject:
Dave ( talk) 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=aPTg2lwsQB7ZCT6P1YhqZA_3d_3d - This is entirely anonymous. This is just to see how we are doing as a project. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 19:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Would someone be willing to take care of this? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 18:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, is there a policy or agreement that says any numbered state route can get an article? I saw an article ( New Jersey Route 180), and I was surprised it existed, given how short it is (both the length of the actual route, and actual article). I was surprised, since the USRD notability policy said
Highways that have very little to say about them (i.e. those that are extremely short and have no historical significance) may be better suited to a list
Is it common to have an article like that? Just as an outsider, I thought it'd be logical to have something like that as part of New Jersey Route 72, of which a former alignment became 180. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that NJ 180 would fit better with NJ 72. The route description is too detailed, and the first two paragraphs of the history are about NJ 72. -- NE2 06:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
New Jersey Route 180 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- NE2 19:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
OK off that soapbox. Dave ( talk) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I decided to join the project, as I do have an interest in roads, and I think I can help out. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to seem like I'm bashing Mitchazenia, and I'm only bringing these articles up because I know him from the WP:WPTC, but it seems like these articles fall into the same bin. New Jersey Route 413 (could be merged with Pennsylvania equivalent?), New Jersey Route 184 (could be merged with NJ 440), New Jersey Route 159 (only uses a map, straight line diagram, and Alps), New Jersey Route 182 (same as last one), and New Jersey Route 161 (same). FWIW, they're all GA's, and they're all less than 1.5 miles long. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 04:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
[De-indent]Disagree. I think lists of minor highways serves a great purpose, the problem with that one is it was incomplete and had an undefined scope (just a hodgepodge list with no definition of what minor means). That page was essentially redone under the title of List of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions, by you nonetheless. I think this does have a purpose as the scope is defined, and it would be more silly to have stub articles on these. I have it on my get around to list essentially implement this on a county wide basis for Nevada where there are dozens of secondary and tertiary routes, each with their own stub article currently. I.E. Minor state routes in Washoe County, etc. Dave ( talk) 14:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I see Dave's comment in a few ways. However, trolling isn't one of them. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
OK Here's stab one of a summary. I think we're all mostly in agreement, just bickering over some minor differences.
Did I miss anything? Dave ( talk) 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[de-indent] added a 5th point to address these concerns. Also, amended text on points 3 and 4. Dave ( talk) 15:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess people think it's okay? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Claims have been raised that the USRD-CRWP WikiCup resulted in editors creating articles on low-importance routes just to get them to GA and get the 20 points. While this may have been a side effect of the result, this was not the intention of the WikiCup. The purpose of the contest was to increase editor activity and to get people editing USRD articles again, and improving quality (for, these low-importance articles as GAs are better than the same articles as stubs, at least). The USRD-CRWP Cup did increase editor activity and it did improve article quality (several articles that were Stub going to C or B) and did get people editing again, and therefore it was largely successful.
However, I do see the point regarding low-importance articles being raised to GA when we should be putting more of an emphasis on higher-importance articles. To that end, next year I will be putting some sort of a multiplier into effect so that these low-importance articles do not generate as many points as a mid- or high-importance article would. The results of this years' contest will not be changed, as that would result in my trying to change the rules after the contest ended (which would be... awkward). -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody with the time and abilities look into a request to improve the map on this article left at Talk:Utah State Route 128. I cannot right now. It is only a suggestion for improvement, not a defect or anything. Many thanks in advance. Dave ( talk) 19:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 31 (Suffolk County, New York) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to settle this issue once and for all as there are users edit warring: [15]. Personally, I prefer this way, but users have been edit warring up and down WP:CASH articles to enforce their own standard. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
So I'm guessing that it is okay to adjust ELG per the above discussion? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I post this here because this could have some implications for USRD articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario) (2nd nomination) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 174A (Sullivan County, New York) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Interstate 40 in Arizona has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Interstate 40 in Arizona/1. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The remaining three articles that were grandfathered in under the old A-Class system have been sent to ACR to ensure that they are really A-Class quality. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This won't be as involved as the GA one was (I hope). I'll just note things in the edit summary on the talk page if the article gets demoted. Now that we have a C-class not as many articles will be demoted as were in the past. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
List of articles that may not be notable:
I haven't forgotten about this - I hope to continue it soon. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Interstate 155 (Illinois) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I will be auditing the USRD GAs. I will take a brief look and make sure that a) the article meets USRD / MOS guidelines and that b) the article is of importance. If an article fails this, I will list it below. If the article is not improved within one week, I will send it to WP:GAR (which is a slow process, so you will still have time to fix it). Articles here may not follow WP:LEAD, may have sourcing issues, may not be comprehensive, may have notability issues, prose issues, etc. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The general rule is this: All the NJ ones have mileages that need to be removed from the lead; the rest need a better WP:LEAD; if there are other problems, I will say so. List:
Just curious, what's wrong with US-89 in Utah or UT 101? C L — 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This is why I would prefer that people who both nominate and review Good Article candidates work with articles outside the project. It does give some perspective that only staying in one project will not. I once proposed that nobody should review an article from a wikiproject they participate in. That was shot down, but it was encouraged to go slow and be a little tougher if reviewing an article in a project you participate in. It's easy for a roadgeek to miss flaws in a road article, such as neologisms, or inadequately explained ideas that to make sense to somebody familiar with the genre. Dave ( talk) 20:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a proposal to make. Articles like Delaware/Maryland Route 54 or Massachusetts/Rhode Island Route 114A seem to be outdated in the format of their title. Recently, New York & Vermont state crosses have been following a new format, seen at State Route 74 (New York – Vermont), which is a Featured Article, and State Route 346 (New York – Vermont), a good article. I think this format would be more encyclopedic, and it would help the name of the articles when it comes time to review them. Examples include:
Anyway, opinions are opened, and I am sure there are more that could be done. Mitchazenia : Chat Trained for the pen 15:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't include State Highway 41 (Washington – Idaho), WA uses State Route, ID uses State Highway; also Idaho is the southern terminus and WA/ID is northern, switch the name around! – CG 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:MOSDASH, there should be spaces between the state name and the en dash only if there is a space within one or both of the names. Thus, "(Delaware – Maryland)" should be "(Delaware–Maryland)" while "(Massachusetts – New Hampshire)" is correct. – T M F 02:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
So... -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I will go on record saying that I do not believe that SRNC should be revisited. The project nearly went belly up during SRNC, and I am very reluctant to go there again. Yes, my reasoning is primarily political on this one, but sometimes political reasons outweigh other concerns, as they do in this case. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Related note: Talk:State Route 314 (New York–Vermont)/GA1 - should highways on two routes that do not form one continuous highway be merged? While NY 314 is a single highway, terminating at the ferry to VT 314, VT 314 is a loop off of US 2 that intersects the ferry during its routing. Neither endpoint of VT 314 is at the ferry leading to NY 314; thus I don't see this as a single, continuous highway as the title implies. – T M F 19:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this discussion has been split into two parts: one debating what the naming convention should be for multi-state routes and one debating when routes should be merged. Although I will take part of the blame for the split, I do feel that both points need to be discussed to prevent what happened with NY-VT 314 (which shouldn't have been merged and I really don't know how to disassemble it). For that reason, I'll launch a new discussion in this section about when they should be merged and leave the original section for the original topic (the naming convention).
Ideas I have and others have posted above for merging:
As for these other multi-state ones that have been proposed for a merge, if a decent article can be made for both of them (and decent ≠ Good Article), then they shouldn't be merged. Feel free to discuss. – T M F 06:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
There's also stuff that exists such as North Carolina Highway 106 - Georgia State Route 246. – T M F 06:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I proposed a merge for it; discussion is at Talk:Interstate 87. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 19:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
See Template talk:U.S. Roads WikiProject - one user wants to convert the template to {{ WPBannerMeta}}. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So... what do we do with this? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I could be convinced either way.
Argument to keep: This highway has a fair number of bridges that are clearly notable by any standard.
Argument to delete: The article, as written, has an arbitrary definition of notability (>100 ft.) with no source justifying that arbitrary decision. (We just decided this was a bad thing for list of minor highways articles, so I'm assuming it's the same with bridges.) If switched to a non-arbitrary standard of notability, such as inclusion in the National Register of Historic places, this table gets shortened to about 10 entries. If the standard is bridges by Conde McCullough, this is redundant, as the article about him already lists these.
If someone wants to clean up and keep this article, here is a quick observation of other issues:
Dave ( talk) 18:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This is what it used to look like. I think the current list is better than that. If you have a better idea for which bridges to include, go for it, but there are some notable ones like the Brush Creek Bridge, Necarney Creek (Sam Reed) Bridge, and New Youngs Bay Bridge that don't satisfy your criteria. There's also a WikiProject Bridges. -- NE2 21:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, to expand on my mention of WikiProject Bridges, I'm not sure why "we" as a project would do anything with this. -- NE2 23:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
What do we do about the article: nothing. It's not tagged under USRD, so we as a project don't need to do anything with it. Suggested improvements are all valid, but they should be passed along to one of the projects that has tagged it, unless we as a project decide that the US 101 in the name is enough to warrant tossing a USRD/ORSH tag on it too. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 06:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of roads in Baltimore County, Maryland - Dough4872 ( talk) 14:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 17 (Elkhart County, Indiana) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York State Route 399 (disambiguation) -- NE2 23:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
List of numbered highways in Monroe, Washington is up for peer review. Link. – CG 16:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
See List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York for details. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Several county route merges have been proposed at WT:NYSR#Open merge proposals. One specific discussion is ongoing at Talk:County Route 48 (Suffolk County, New York)#Merge. Whether to merge or not is apparently contentious. It would be greatly appreciated if we can get a wider opinion on whether these proposed merges are reasonable or not. Any alternative suggestions are also welcome. -- Polaron | Talk 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Earlier this evening, I finished working on an expansion of Nevada State Route 376. Prior to my first edit of the article in April, this article was clearly a stub and was rated as such. With my expansion, the current version is probably "C" or "B" class.
Knowing that I have improved the article, I could easily go in and reassess the article to "C" class. However, since I was the primary editor behind improving the article's status, couldn't that technically be perceived as a conflict of interest? Alternately, I could tag the talk banner with "reassess=yes". The one time I recall doing that for another NV SR article, it was several days before someone looked at it. I've never seen any articles listed at Category:U.S. Roads project articles needing reassessment any time I've checked, and wonder whether other editors actually use this feature. (I should note that I have reassessed my own articles in the past, mainly before I was aware of the "reassess=yes" tag.)
So I guess I'm looking for some clarification on what other road editors do once they've improved an article, and what other peoples' thoughts are on how articles (below GA-class) are/should be assessed. -- LJ ( talk) 06:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Washington State Route 203 is up for peer review. I am also here to annouce a new contest: The Good Articles Across America Challenge (GAAA Challenge), where you write a road article for each of the 50 states and get it to GA standards! Sign up by June 15 and the contest will begin on the 20th! – CG 21:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The contest is horribly structured. We have too many contests open; please wait to start a new one and in the meantime, restructure your own. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me just point out that I'm not against contests, but we don't need to spend time setting up and running contests all the time when we could use that time to improve articles. I'll admit that I'm frustrated that I have an article at FAC for a second time, that has all of the "issues" fixed from the first FAC, and there are editors pushing small articles through GAN for the sake of a contest. That doesn't mean that getting GAs is a bad thing. Getting editors to flex their editing muscle and write quality articles in other areas of the country is also a very good thing as well. I guess we should channel the enthusiasm and energy into getting as many articles up to as good of quality as possible. USRD has tagged some 10,000 articles and it would be nice to get them destubbed, expanded and revised to good quality. For every U.S. Route 50 in Nevada article out there, there are several articles like South Carolina Highway 363. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 15:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
[16] There appears to be some useful information in here for the states that responded, including New York (pp. 36-69). -- NE2 13:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Could someone take care of updating the portal for June? Unfortunately I think I'm getting sick, otherwise I would do it. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007, the articles Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania and Interstate 476 have been re-reviewed against current GA standards. The articles will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the articles will be delisted. -- ErgoSum• talk• trib 00:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I was just attempting to amend the wikitable on Washington State Route 542 to include Abbotsford, British Columbia as a city2= entry following Sumas, Washington (Abbotsford is just across the border with Sumas, which is a border crossing). What comes out is Abbotsford, British Columbia, Washington which clearly won't work. Then I realized that in the same table, and no doubt in other Washington state tables attempting to target Vancouver (which is an undisambiguated article-title for the BC city) winds up being the target for Vancouver, Washington, which is at the other end of I-5 and far from teh areas where Vancouver will be targeted. So I puzzled on how to amend it - because if I take out the state=WA switch then "542" will not have a state attached to it. There are numerous highway articles with this table that are in range of the Canadian border, not just in t Vancouver - Lower Mainland area, all along the Canada-US border. So how can this table be improved or adapted to deal with cross-border locations; and in this case to prevent mention of "Vancouver" to directing to the wrong city? Skookum1 ( talk) 21:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
As part of the efforts over the past couple of days to improve I-476, the control city box that was on the page was removed. This is probably one of the few parts of the early USRD standard that's still in existence today. I know we came to a consensus a year or so ago that "communities" and "major cities" boxes should be removed from articles; however, I believe (and this is going from memory) that Interstate Highway control cities boxes were omitted from the discussion because they seemed to serve a purpose (indicating the control cities along the route). Since consensus can change, and since it was removed on I-476, I figured I'd bring the issue back up for discussion. – T M F 05:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The previous discussion referenced above: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 10#Major cities box. – T M F 06:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems like something that should be in the introduction to the article, as a sentence describing what major cities are on the road. As for control cities, many states don't strictly follow the AASHTO list, and others flood it with insignificant towns ( Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania). -- NE2 15:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that we limited this field to incorporated places since unincorporated places don't have set boundaries, therefore it would be impossible to determine (or source) whether an interchange was located within that particular place. See the discussion here: User talk:Holderca1#I-75 in Florida. -- Holderca1 talk 17:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this is being taken way to seriously. I don't see how we could agree to a non-Orwellian rule that could cover all the bases. Even in incorporated metropolitan areas, I've seen situations where an exit is technically within one city, but is near the city limits with little or no access to that city and for all practical purposes is in a neighboring city. ( Interstate 215 (Utah) is an example where mild edit-warring has occurred over this). Combining this with the example you list, with unincorporated areas, that do not have strictly defined limits, and at some point common sense has to reigh. My advice is to list what is usefull, even if not 100% technically accurate. IMO we should place article utility over listing every podunkvile that nobody's ever heard of and/or omitting Miami as a location, as the intersection is technically 300 feet from the city limits and in reality in a different city. Dave ( talk) 19:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm definitely against using unincorporated locations as locations in an exit or junction list. I've been replacing them with the incorporated towns that they're located in as I clean up New York articles. However, since some are "notable", what I usually do is indicate the unincorporated location in the notes column. – T M F 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently, I have been improving the article Interstate 695 (Maryland), which is the Baltimore Beltway. Looking at both Wikipedia:WikiProject Roads in Maryland/Editing guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards, they do not provide for how the route description of a beltway should be ordered. I am assuming that it is to start from milepost zero and continue clockwise, in accordance with AASHTO guidelines. However, there are exceptions with other beltways, such as Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) where mileposts and exit numbers are organized counterclockwise (this is due to the concurrency with I-95). I feel that the ordering of the route description in beltway articles is an important convention that has been overlooked and am opening a discussion to see if we can establish one. Dough4872 ( talk) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's an actual example of the first hypothetical case in my comment above. Say I was to write an article about McCarran Boulevard in Reno, NV. McCarran isn't a beltway/freeway, but it is a major arterial forming a full-circle belt route through the Reno-Sparks area. The northeast quarter of the loop consists of the entirety of SR 650, the northwest quarter is the entirety of SR 651, and the south half is locally maintained (and was previously part of the two routes). Mileposts of SR 650 and SR 651 begin at the US 395 interchange on the north end, with SR 650 mileposts increasing clockwise and SR 651 mileposts increasing counterclockwise. So where would I begin with the route description in this case? This is an article I've actually thought about creating (merging two related articles into one more comprehensive article), so responses and suggestions might be helpful both for me and in the overall discussion. -- LJ ( talk) 02:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A bit of good news to report - an exemption has been added to the Commons whitelist that once again allows shields that use the "<state abbreviation>-<number>.svg" convention to be uploaded to commons. These shields had been blocked since sometime in the winter because their names were getting caught in the regex of the new Commons blacklist. Everything should be good now. – T M F 20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Among my travels, and going through the photos I have, I have noticed a strange dysfunction in terms of what shields we are using (Image:Circle sign x.svg) and the shields that the New Jersey Department of Transportation use.
Here is an example situation:
NJ Route 184
The shields we use on Wikipedia currently:
The shields that I have seen in real life:
Now, if you look carefully, specifically on this one, can you see the difference in the two shields? If you look here, you should be able to find more examples.
Now, we have the New Jersey shields still that we originally used, which I think is a little better to standards than what we have, seen by this example:
If we adjust the NJ 184 shield above this comment, we should have a perfect rendition of the shields seen. I am proposing that for Jersey, we stop using the Circle sign shields and revert back to the original.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 20:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
While we are discussing New Jersey shields, here is a similar case I noticed with Delaware:
The shield currently used for Delaware Route 15:
Three examples of DE 15 shields in the field:
The original shield used for DE 15:
Notice from the pictures how the font on the DE 15 shields match closer to the original Delaware-specific shield used rather than the newer one used. Many state route shields I have seen throughout Delaware closer match the original style used and I feel it might be better to switch back to this design to closer match what is seen in the field. Dough4872 ( talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The guy may have moved onto a new IP by now, but it looks like he's trying to make a comeback: Special:Contributions/99.53.195.153. If anyone here follows Missouri, be sure to keep an eye out for suspicious edits. – T M F 21:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
These reviews are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.
Thanks to User:Dough4872, Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania and U.S. Route 50 have been improved and kept. Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) still has 3 days left, and should be easy enough for anyone willing and knowledgeable about the sources needed for this article. United States Numbered Highways still has one day left, if an editor is willing to at least start working on it then I'm willing to extend the hold time an extra seven days. But if no action is taken then it will likely be delisted tomorrow. -- ErgoSum• talk• trib 14:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Both of these should be automatic deletes but here they are: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 7#Template:Jctint/noaccess and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 7#Template:Jctint/deleted. All uses of both have been phased out. – T M F 22:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Nergaal has nominated List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
File:Orange_Belt.gif is currently slated to be deleted (and may be by the time this gets read) for a lack of copyright information. However, wouldn't the design of the Orange Belt shield (and all the other Pittsburgh belts excluding the newer Purple one) fall under the "lack of originality" category, putting it in the public domain? If so, I'll look into making SVGs for the original belts. – T M F 04:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I have run, now, into 2 states to where routes maintained by the National Park Service have been given designations. The first I know, is National Park Service Route 615, which is signed, but covered in County Route 615 (Sussex County, New Jersey). Here's my question, are these routes notable as they are run by the feds? So far I know of 4 - 3 in NY, and 1 in NJ:
What's the notability on these?3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
See Special:Contributions/67.85.77.39. The last few edits seem odd, I don't know how active the state project is so I posted it here. Sswonk ( talk) 00:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York) – T M F 16:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 35 (Warren County, New York) -- NE2 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a concern that needs to be brought up with junction lists used in roads that consist of both freeway and non-freeway segments. In the GA review for New York State Route 104, I was concerned with the Major intersections section consisting of three tables, with one covering a freeway portion of the route as an exit list and two covering non-freeway portions of the route as a junction list. While this was done to be compliant with ELG standards, as exit lists are not allowed to have the colors used for concurrencies, I do not like this format. In the article New Jersey Route 29, which also consists of both freeway and non-freeway portions, I used an exit list that listed all the exits along the freeway portion and only major junctions along the non-freeway portion. A column span was used to indicate where the freeway portion ended. No colors were used to highlight concurrencies, such as the one with NJ 179. I feel the ELG should be changed to both deprecate colors used in junction lists for concurrencies as well as call for routes with both freeway and non-freeway portions to be merged into one list and am opening a discussion to see what should be done. Dough4872 ( talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't see the need of multiple formats, use the ELG format for all junction tables. -- Holderca1 talk 17:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a poll at WT:ELG to attempt to resolve this issue. Dough4872 ( talk) 02:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have brought this up before, but more of PennDOT is using the SR (State Route) name for the roads. Other than in real life and on sign evidence, its really time we do two things. The first - something I want done - a change of the SRNC decision for Pennsylvania, and second - the rename of the project back to its original name - Pennsylvania State Highways (it was moved by Son in 2008 w/o consensus). I note NE2's opinion from last time, but I refuse to let this dicussion end with just him. I want an actual valuable discussion. Mitch/ HC32 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Back on topic here - I still believe, even though we run into the problem with 380 or 400 that the articles should follow PennDOT suit and be Pennsylvania State Route 380 or Pennsylvania Traffic Route 380 (I think for the former, 380 & 283 can be given exceptions). However, I want a consensus outside of NE2 and a discussion outside of NE2. Let's hear some other voices. Mitch/ HC32 01:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Someone has created a (pretty good) article for Zion-Mount Carmel Highway. Problem, this is a section of Utah State Route 9, and in fact is the heart of the highway and what gives it notability. There is precedent for this with Pasadena Freeway and California State Route 110. However, in this case the two articles are significantly redundant (albeit IMO one is better written). I'm not sure what to do here, should they be combined, or improve the SR-9 article to not be redundant and link to this article for the portion in Zion National Park. I've not done a lot of research on this highway, but I do believe it would be possible to have two non-redundant articles. Dave ( talk) 22:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
By the way, how's this for a notability standard: if Google's autosuggest feature knows the name, it's probably notable
--
NE2
00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Could I get a few comments on these edits? Revert warring to his particular version of the article - going against the FAC recommendations for the R mileposting, as well as reinstating the major cities box and using a partial mileage, after being told several times not to do so Changing the guideline to suit his own edits without consensus. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 17:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Please read my section on ANI; in short, there has been a lot of revert warring and crummy edits in CASH lately, and this needs to be stopped. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is he putting the major cities box in the history section? If you are going to add it in there, at least put it in the right place. -- Holderca1 talk 12:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This violates the recent change in ELG: [20]. Any comments? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
And [23] sums up his attitude. I'm considering filing a user RFC, but I don't have the time to write it up. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 50. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently, I have added traffic counts to articles about roads in Maryland from the Highway Location Reference by the MDSHA as part of a drive to improve them to GA-class. However, concerns arose in both the GA review of Maryland Route 213 and in the A-class review of Baltimore-Washington Parkway about the apparent overuse of the traffic counts. Dave floated the idea of using a table to display these traffic counts. I am opening a discussion here to discuss what should be done with the usage of traffic counts in articles and to see if we can establish a USRD convention onto how traffic counts should be handled, whether it be through a table or some other means. Dough4872 ( talk) 01:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The recent edits that Mitchazenia ( talk · contribs) made are a problem. [24] [25] This is not the notation that WP:CASH normally uses. NE2 ( talk · contribs) originally set these guidelines, which I believe should be the polices of WP:ELG. Mgillfr ( talk) 23:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Mitchazenia, WP:PRETTY just states that neatness is not the primary factor for any article. But that does not mean that editors cannot have the option of making an article look neat. Mgillfr ( talk) 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This crap is why I'd prefer a universal ELG standard we can fall back on.... Dave ( talk) 01:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the step of opening Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mgillfr. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Mitch needs to watch his capitalization and spacing - "Interchange;Right-of-way continues as Araz Road"? This is really a case-by-case thing, as I don't think anyone would want to put the NJ 42 continuation of I-76 in the right column. -- NE2 07:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The title of the section describes my proposal fairly succinctly: I would like to create a task force of WP:NY that would deal with all roads in New York. This task force, as I envision it, would also be a subproject of USRD and a co-parent project of NYSR. This move is needed as right now, many items are tagged as being within the scope of the New York State Routes WikiProject that do not fall within the project's defined scope. And, no, this move is not to "game the system": in fact, many of the articles I speak of are fairly high up the assessment ladder, including many Good Articles. The details of my proposal are as follows:
Thoughts on this proposal are welcomed. – T M F 03:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
While not as developed as TMF's idea, how about a task force under USRD for county roads, nationwide. Since most county roads aren't notable, this task force wouldn't/shouldn't be swamped with articles, but it would provide a consistent place for developing ideas on what county-maintained roads articles should be covered, any variations in formats and the like. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 03:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not bring WP:NYSR back under P:USRD like it was before? Ngs61 ( talk) 13:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Technically, Arden Valley Road is considered a New York State Park Road, just like Bay Parkway (Jones Beach). Therefore this and other roads like it should be included. ---- DanTD ( talk) 22:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I read the above discussion as so far including two supporters for a Task Force of wp:NY that would address all notable roads in New York ( User:TwinsMetsFan (the proposer) and User:Mitchazenia). And I support it too, so that it could focus on any notable County roads and other notable roads that do not fall within USRD's scope, and for other reasons. That makes three supporters. Although I don't have standing as a wp:USRD member to comment (I am not a USRD member, unless i have listed myself at NYSR and if that counts), but i am a wp:NY member. I don't want to fragment this discussion, but it would seem natural for this proposal to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York, and/or for notice of discussion here to be posted at wp:NY, wp:SYR, wp:capdis, wp:LONGI, wp:NYC, and wp:hvny where many potentially interested editors would be reached. doncram ( talk) 21:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone comment on the recent edits to CA 78? Mgillfr continues to revert to his preferred version, violating both the FAC recommendations as well as MOS regarding italics. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
(od)Mgillfr: Your new wording for the footnote is ok, but needs to be made singular, as the note applies to each postmile individually. I.E. it should say "Postmile is measured from State Route 86." or similar. Dave ( talk) 23:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! What is the consensus for listing postmiles in the county column in California? Is there consensus to do this? -- Son ( talk) 15:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Golden State Freeway -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
See WT:HWY. Dough4872 ( talk) 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Route 199 in California Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Route 199 in Oregon -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Featured today on the main page in the "Did you know..." section, Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony. This is not currently mentioned in the Interstate 195 (Florida) stub article if anyone wants to take a stab at including it. Me, I don't know if it fits in a stub, so I'm putting it as an FYI here. Sswonk ( talk) 04:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, someone added it three hours ago as a "See also" at the bottom, I missed it. Sswonk ( talk) 04:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think there needs to be some kind of a rough guideline for what can be listed whenever a Major Cities box is used. For example, this (current) revision of Interstate 15 lists Shelby, Montana (2000 Census population: 3,217) in the Major Cities box, but does not list Mesquite, Nevada (2000 pop.: 9,389) or North Las Vegas, Nevada (2000 pop.: 115,488). That page also lists Baker, California, which isn't even an incorporated city. WP:USRD/STDS#Major cities doesn't provide any guidance on this issue. I think we'd all agree that only incorporated cities (or equivalents) should be listed in the box. But the main question is, what constitutes a "major" city? Do any of the state projects have guidelines they follow? Should we even worry about developing a threshold for this? -- LJ ( talk) 04:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please point me to a nice simple article (more than one would be fine) of good quality that we in Australia could look to as an example of how road articles should be constructed? Most of ours are frankly monstrosities for one reason or another (see Tullamarine Freeway, Ipswich Motorway, EastLink (Melbourne) and Hume Highway) and I'm interested in getting a project together to reform them. Orderinchaos 17:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
(od)Above are examples of articles that have passed a Featured Article Candidate review. Another idea is to participate in a review of an article that is currently nominated for a promotion in status. That may give you some ideas what stays and what gets cut out as articles are improved. The U.S. Roads Wikiproject maintains a list of nominated articles at the bottom of the project page ( WP:USRD). There is a project for highways worldwide at WP:HWY, but I don't know how active it is, or if they maintain such a list. Dave ( talk) 19:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I've implemented new formatting for the postmile concurrencies on the California State Route 78 article. Does this look fine? There are still some things I'm not fully comfortable with in the current implementation. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Another option is the current setup that California State Route 115 uses. Is this any better? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I concur that CA-115 is the better of the two. With that said, anything to just make this go away. We're on, what, year three of the California exit list edit wars? I'm surprised this hasn't made WP:LAME yet. Dave ( talk) 00:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems intuitive to place a "78" before those that have 78 on the physical postmile. Maybe it would be better to describe what an extra number means in the note? -- NE2 02:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
So has there been a consensus on this yet? Whatever comes out of this will likely be implemented elsewhere, and the preferred standard will need to be documented somewhere. -- LJ ( talk) 00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we move Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania Roads back to its original name? Most of the project page was never changed to reflect it, and as a bonus, there was no consensus for this move back in early 2008. This was moved during the Arbitration Case, and I think its time, while the project is close to dead, that we move it back, because consensus and scope are the issue here. I've brought this up before, so I would like to see this actually discussed. Mitch/ HC32 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
(od) To be honest, I could care less weather the project is titled PA Roads or PA Highways. IMO, we've got much bigger fish to fry. Dave ( talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
So.... what's the point, exactly? - Algorerhythms ( talk) 22:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have put merge tags up for this article, discuss here. Mitch/ HC32 19:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Talk:U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois Dave ( talk) 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has proposed merging Interstate 24 in Tennessee and Interstate 24 in Georgia into Interstate 24 in Tennessee and Georgia. Not sure where the discussion will be held. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Could someone comment on these edits? [27] [28] Basically he is adding nonnotable junctions to the junction list because he wants to list every single control city on every single BGS on the highway. In addition to this, he believes that we need to include all roads marked in yellow on Google Maps, and every single road junction with a signed control city. Can someone tell him that that's not what we do? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) It's trivially easy to find errors in Google Maps. However, we need to keep the larger point in mind. Rschen's complaint was that intersections were being listed solely because the roads are drawn with a thick line in Google Maps. I think the point is well made now, that Google maps should NEVER be the primary source for information in the article, and that includes the Major intersections guide. What I traditionally do is have an on-line map, and paper atlas or map, if it shows up as major in both, then I'll add. Using this standard, I've removed many junctions in CA road articles because it only showed up as major in one, not both. Sadly, they have since been added right back in. Dave ( talk) 17:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Are junctions notable to be included in major intersections solely if they were a former routing of a state / US route? Case in point: major intersections table of California State Route 39. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Recently, Mitch and I have been improving articles about Interstates, U.S. highways, and state routes in New Jersey to GA status. One problem I came upon is how the U.S. Route 1/9 concurrency in northern New Jersey should be handled. Currently, we have a U.S. Route 1/9 article that dewscribes the concurrency while both the U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey and U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey articles describe those routes south of where they split. My thinking was that we have the US 1/9 article thoroughly describe the concurrency while the separate state-detail pages for US 1 and US 9 thoroughly describe the portion south of the concurrency with a brief summary of the concurrent portion. Mitch said that the information should be in the US 1 article since it takes precedence to US 9. Another idea is to turn U.S. Route 1/9 into a disambiguation page to the US 1 and US 9 articles and list the details of the concurrency separately in each article. This is similar to how the long concurrency of Maryland Route 2 and Maryland Route 4 is handled. However, this third idea would cause a lot of redundancy between the US 1 and US 9 articles. Therefore, I am opening a discussion to see what the best option is. Dough4872 ( talk) 18:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There are separate shields for US 1 and US 9 (not the hyphenated ones) along the concurrency such as in this picture. Nevertheless, the concurrency is long enough that it probably warrants its own article. In addition, the junction list for the concurrency should only appear in the US 1/9 articles while the junction list in the US 1 and US 9 articles should describe the portions south of the split. I guess the status quo is the best way to go. Dough4872 ( talk) 17:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I was talking with another member about why he was uploading new PA Quadrant Route shields to "File:Quadrant Route xxxx.svg" instead of our standard "File:PA QR xxxx.svg" but he says that he can't upload to the latter file name. I remember a while back that members got the Commons to allow our short file-named shields and I was wondering if someone here could do that again. I would but I can't seem to find where that discussion happened and if I did, it'd probably be a too complex of a procedure for a simple-minded roadgeek like me. :) — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 21:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I was going to write this earlier, but got distracted. Already, a response to part 1 has alluded to my second point. Lately, I am seeing an increasing number of Major Cities boxes that are being treated as "Control Cities" boxes. WP:USRD/STDS#Major cities states that the box should be "a list of major cities along the route". Taking the current revision of Interstate 15 as an example, the box lists Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles as major cities through other connecting highways; that box also lists Lethbridge, Alberta in Canada. All these cities are clearly not located along Interstate 15, so why are they in the Major Cities box? The situation is further illustrated by the use of notes indicating a direction (northbound, etc.). To the road enthusiast, we might understand that this indicates the control city direction; for the average user unfamiliar with the highway, they may be wondering why I-15 only serves San Diego in the southbound direction. That I-15 example has several instances (mostly within California) of control city related notes within the major cities box. The situation also exists on state-detail articles as well. When I reviewed this version of Interstate 70 in Colorado for its ACR, one of the first things I noticed was three non-Colorado cities in the Major Cities box. I suggested the removal of these cities, thinking it might cause confusion for the average reader to see Utah and Kansas cities mentioned in a major cities list for a Colorado section of Interstate. With these removed, the box makes a bit more sense on a state-detail page. From the discussion above, it would seem some editors may prefer the removal of the Major Cities box. I don't care whether it's kept or cut. If it is kept, I would like to see something that explicitly states that the route serves the communities listed. The box should not be used as a means to list control cities because these are, in my opinion, difficult to source (outside of photographs/Google Street View) and do not provide encyclopedic information about the route itself. -- LJ ( talk) 06:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(od) I'm all in favor of dumping them completely. If it is truly a major city, it will be mentioned in the text with a wikilink at some point anyway. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there nothing in the US along the lines of List of primary destinations on the United Kingdom road network? All towns/cities listed in UK roads infoboxes must be on that list (which is an official government document). As such it would solve any issues of which towns/cities to include? Or am I completely getting the wrong end of the disagreement here? Jeni ( talk) 00:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This is simply a single place to list the current opinion of participants, not anything binding. Indicate a preference to either Keep or Remove "Major Cities" boxes from USRD articles:
What is the status of this? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
If the decision is to keep the major cities/control boxes. Here are some ideas to standardize the boxes. Just ideas for discussion
Dave ( talk) 01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The straw poll showed most favored delete, with some keep and standardize. As such how about this for a compromise:
How about this? Dave ( talk) 01:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
(od)
Doing...
Done I am taking the next hour or two to compile a table of the FWHA list intersected with the 40K restricted population of the urban areas list. I'm notifying everyone to avoid any possible duplication of effort this morning. This doesn't mean I oppose addition of other criteria in the proposal, I simply think it would be good to see exactly what we are talking about with those two lists used as standards.
Sswonk (
talk)
15:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
This would replace the "Major cities" section that currently exists:
In the past editors have added a second small infobox entitled "Major cities" to articles, and used that box to list several prominent cities along the route. However, no practical standards published by secondary sources exist that are useful for determining the inclusion or exclusion of a particular city within the box. Standards can not be set, neither based on population and local prominence nor based on proximity and number of exits or intersections within the city. Through experience it has been determined that the use of such boxes is not acceptable. The coverage of major cities served by a route should exist only within the article body, exit or junction lists, and the article infobox "major junctions" locations.
Notice it doesn't say anything about state projects, this would just express the standards USRD wishes to have imposed. Sswonk ( talk) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
In the past, a second small infobox entitled "Major cities" has been used in the route description section to list prominent cities along the route. However, no secondary sources have been found that are useful for determining whether a particular city should be included or excluded within the box. Various criteria have been proposed (population, local prominence, number of junctions/interchanges, etc.); however, no consensus has emerged in favor of any particular standard. In addition to the lack of source and standards, previous experience has shown that the contents of the Major Cities box can be contentious on certain articles. Unless an acceptable source defining major cities is found, it is not appropriate to use the Major Cities box. Major cities served by a route should be covered in the route description, junction list, and/or in the article infobox.
I have revised my suggested text, now shown below, to reflect a few of the revisions offered by LJ. Going through the discussions above yet another time I think consensus is very strong that the use of the "Major cities" boxes is not supported. I think also that the lead paragraph of WP:USRD/STDS is weak enough already, mentioning WP:IAR in the second sentence. There is no need to show again that things can change with consensus because the entire page leads off with that statement. Rather, the deprecation of "Major cities" boxes should be made clear and unequivocal with reasons. No instructions for removal are needed, the statement itself gives the reasons. The overwhelming opinion given here is that the information is best handled within the article and is self-evident by the exit and junction lists, and that coming up with standards to go back to using a revised second infobox called "Major cities" is to be as discouraged as the boxes themselves. The wording of the statement can make that quite clear.
In the past a second small infobox entitled "Major cities" was sometimes added to articles to list several prominent cities as part of the route description. However, no practical standards published by secondary sources have been found that are useful for determining the inclusion or exclusion of a particular city within the box. Because of the lack of such sources, standards can not be set. Basing standards on such criteria as population, local prominence, number of junctions/interchanges etc. becomes subjective and a source of contention. The use of "Major cities" boxes is therefor deprecated and they should not be used in articles. The coverage of major cities served by a route should exist only within the article body, exit or junction lists, and the article infobox "major junctions" locations.
– Sswonk ( talk) 03:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
In the past, a second infobox entitled "Major cities" was sometimes added to articles to list several prominent cities as part of the route description. However, no published secondary sources have been found that are useful for determining the inclusion or exclusion of a particular city within the box. Due to the lack of such sources, practical standards can not be set. Basing guidelines on criteria such as population, local prominence, or number of junctions/interchanges becomes a subjective exercise and a source of contention. Therefore, the use of "Major cities" boxes has been deprecated by consensus, and similar lists should not be used in articles. Major cities should not appear outside of the article prose, except in conjunction with a major intersection or terminus entry in the article's infobox or junction table.
Interstate Route |
State | Major Cities Served (Pop. larger than 5,000) ( |
---|---|---|
I-4 | Florida | Tampa, Lakeland, Orlando, Daytona Beach |
I-5 | California | San Diego, Los Angeles, Stockton, Sacramento, |
Oregon | ||
Washington | ||
TOTAL | ||
I-8 | California | San Diego, El Centro |
Arizona | Yuma, | |
TOTAL | ||
I-10 | California | |
Arizona | Phoenix, | |
New Mexico | ||
Texas | El Paso, | |
Louisiana | Lake Charles, LaFayette, Baton Rouge, | |
Mississippi | Gulfport, Biloxi, Pascagoula | |
Alabama | Mobile | |
Florida | Pensacola, Tallahassee, Jacksonville | |
TOTAL | ||
I-12 | Louisiana | Baton Rouge, Slidell |
1-15 | California | San Diego, |
Nevada | Las Vegas | |
Arizona | None | |
Utah | Saint George, | |
Idaho | Pocatello, | |
Montana | ||
TOTAL | ||
I-16 | Georgia | Macon, Savannah |
I-17 | Arizona | Phoenix, Flagstaff |
I-19 | Arizona | |
I-20 | Texas | |
Louisiana | Shreveport, | |
Mississippi | ||
Alabama | Tuscaloosa, | |
Georgia | Atlanta, | |
S. Carolina | ||
TOTAL | ||
I-24 | Illinois | |
Kentucky | Paducah, | |
Tennessee | Clarksville, Nashville, Murfreesboro, | |
Georgia | None | |
TOTAL | ||
I-25 | New Mexico | Las Cruces, |
Colorado | ||
Wyoming | Cheyenne, Casper, | |
TOTAL | ||
I-99* | Pennsylvania |
I stopped at I-26, having concluded this method is too restrictive. I started to worry at I-5 and then I-10 but removing Butte and Helena from I-15 seemed to tip the scales too far. I have the complete FWHA list in table form without strikes in storage if needed. Sswonk ( talk) 16:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
There are certainly some false positives in here, but User:NE2/major cities should have almost all that need to be fixed. -- NE2 05:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) Thanks for making this list, It's making the cleanup easier. Dave ( talk) 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Q: What about articles such as Lincoln Highway. I was about to delete the major cities box for this article, but decided to ask first. In this case the box is equally clogging the article space. However, for auto trails, named scenic byways that span multiple numeric designations, etc. these are not as easily verifiable with, say Google Maps. As such maybe the major cities list adds more value here, than on, say I-95? I still am leaning towards delete, but would like a 2nd opinion. Dave ( talk) 02:51, 22 August 2009 (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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
A user wants to change the design of the template. See Template talk:Interstates. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a few questions about {{ Jct}} and {{ Infobox road}}. With Jct, I don't remember it started pulling state-name Interstate shields, but it does now. And after what happened recently with those shields, I don't understand why it still calls them. So can we take a look at that? My second question is simpler. Can we make Infobox road able to display Future Interstate shields? We did it for Infobox Interstate, but then we got rid of that. If we can make it so "I" is replaced by "F" or "FI", then it can just call a future shield (provided one's available). Right now I just insert under "route" "XXX (Future)" which calls the shield, but it's not a solution. Any ideas for both? -- MPD T / C 20:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
marker_image
, given there are so few that are fully future. --
NE2
20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)I just wanted to explain what I was doing (not on behalf of USRD at all - this is my personal project). I am going through the B-class articles and seeing if they are truly at the (new) B-class standards. I am checking for three things:
I'm spending about 30 seconds reviewing each article and giving the benefit of the doubt, so I'm being pretty gracious. If I don't see any problems within 30 seconds, I leave it alone. However, I'm still demoting a lot of articles (mostly unsourced RDs or histories). Ouch... -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Now, alot of articles missing maps has a map now. We still have like 20 articles still have to get map.-- 57 Free ways 01:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Alot of them is small state highways. interstate articles seem to been slightly imporving. For copyditing is out of my ability.-- 57 Free ways 01:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now, it's pretty hard to find an article on a congressional district, unless one knows a) The name of the person holding the office, or b) the specific naming structure of Wikipedia's articles on them.
For me, it seems natural to search for, for example, "NC 8", to find the 8th congressional district of North Carolina. But that takes me to the article on NC Highway 8, an equally valid possibility.
I haven't brought this up on any other wikiprojects yet because I wanted to ask first, it would be really helpful if either the redirects were turned into dabs, or a hatnote were put at the top of the road articles directing people to the congressional district (or vice versa).
Thoughts? -- Golbez ( talk) 08:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I don't agree with NYSR splitting from USRD. The whole idea is silly (under our system, New York is its own country, among other things). But why in the world do we, non-members of NYSR, get to decide they must rejoin us? The decision should be left up to them. C L — 16:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you read User:Rschen7754/Wikistatus and shared a response to it. It talks about my perspective on USRD and things lately and how I honestly feel about that. If you are in a hurry, the bold statements are the conclusions and the "So what?" statements; the rest is how I arrived at them. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 09:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona State Route 48 -- NE2 11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that there are a large number of road-related images listed on User:AWeenieMan/furme/DFUI/Logos that will be deleted for lack of fair use rationales in the near future. Some people from this project may want to lend a hand with WP:FURME. MBisanz talk 03:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem I have noticed in State Route Naming Conventions. When the original polls were done in 2006 (see: WP:SRNC), no discussion was ever made of Pennsylvania and its system. Currently we have "Pennsylvania Route X, XX, XXX" when it should be "Pennsylvania State Route X, XX, XXX" because this naming convention we have violates PennDOT code and signage. Also to bonus this the secondary system in the state, quadrant routes - use "State" in their header. (See:the stub State Route 2010 (Erie County, Pennsylvania)). Why do we use State in one header and just Route X in another. Also, other than the contradiction with itself, the PennDOT system is and has been "State Route X, XX, XXX". I propose that we move all Pennsylvania mainline highways to the respective "Pennsylvania State Route X, XX, XXX" headers. There need be no change in the quadrant route system, since they are like county routes and are treated that way. However, I do see a fault in the naming convention and it should be changed.Mitch32( UP) 22:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, about the two state routes that do not match (283 and 380) - they would use the State Route header - but would not be PA State Route 400 and PA State Route 300 - they would be PA State Route 283 and PA State Route 380, but still be mentioned in the article about the difference.Mitch32( UP) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
See relevant discussion here. -- Son ( talk) 03:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been reminded that I owe a project-level triple crown to this project. Normally I do that by editing a visual symbol that relates to the project into the center of a triple crown. Suggestions, please? Tire treads come to mind. This is your crown (apologies for the delay) and I'd like to make it fun for you. Durova Charge! 22:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Could do an exit direction sign, with a crown where a shield would normally go, e.g.
![]() |
Three crowns would work just as well. Of course a white rounded border would be needed. An accurate arrow can be found in Image:USRD_ELG.svg. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Currently, there is no effective place to review lists before FAC. HWY PR is ignored. I propose that we should let lists be reviewed at ACR, which gets enough publicity. It has been suggested that we add the designation that the list has been reviewed by ACR to the talk page. Any suggestions? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if a review system is needed; yes I understand your thoughts on it, but usually with FLCs you have plenty of time to fix the issues brought up before its time for it to be passed/failed. -- Admrboltz ( talk) 22:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 95#Infobox revisited and [2]. I think this rule has to be relaxed to allow for reasonable variation. Why are we excluding junctions with in the major cities of Philadelphia and Washington just because they don't fit neatly into the guideline? That guideline was written primarily to address the infobox from getting too long, which is not the issue here. If the only reason preventing adding these junctions is that the WikiProject, as currently written, implies that these shouldn't be listed, then that's simply not valid. That rule has to go. -- Polaron | Talk 04:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose rewording the relevant guideline to something like:
Note:
- Only major junctions go into the Interstate routebox. These would be junctions with other Interstate Highways and/or junctions located in or near the central cities of major metropolitan areas with other important highways such as turnpikes and U.S. routes. Listing of multiple junctions in the same location should be avoided if possible. If any routebox has over 10 junctions, then some of the junctions need to be removed.
- Auxillary Interstate Highways have more lenient rules in general because of their shorter nature. Junctions with major state roads may be added within reason. The 10-junction limit still applies regardless.
- For certain cross-country Interstate Highways where the above would result in over 10 junctions (e.g. I-10, I-40, I-75, I-80, I-90, and I-95), a good rule of thumb to follow is to include only junctions with Interstate Highways ending in '5' or '0' and/or those in or near the central cities of major metropolitan areas. In any case, the 10-junction limit should be followed.
-- Polaron | Talk 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
California State Route 5 directs people to California State Route 35, to which 5 was redesignated in 1964.
However, the list of California state highways links 5 to Legislative Route 5 (California pre-1964), which redirects to I-580, and has no mention of route 5.
Is this correct, or does Legislative Route 5 need to be re-redirected to Route 35? -- Golbez ( talk) 23:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Recently there have been some votes at ACR saying "Support - good job!" Under the current system, they are counted as support votes, regardless of whether the article fits the criteria or not. What should we do regarding this issue? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose that this be put into place for all new ACRs, if there are no objections. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 09:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Diego Freeway -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Are there any other metropolitan areas where the road articles are in a better shape we could use as a baseline? California is the only state I'm aware of where there is such a mismatch between the named freeways and the numbers on those routes. Phoenix has different names for parts of I-10 and I-17 but to the best of my knowledge there isn't a named freeway that jumps numerical designations, for example. Dave ( talk) 01:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has an interest, look at a rename proposal for Category:Two-lane freeways. It needs some additional comments. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Is the preference in the main highway article, such as currently at Interstate 5, to link to state-detail articles in the infobox or to link to the main article? For example, on the main I-5 article above, to link to Interstate 10 in California as opposed to just Interstate 10? Right now the current situation is that most of the articles I've looked at point to state-detail pages, provided one is available of course.
I ask because here's the situation:
I don't care which way, I'd just like to know what the current opinions are. But can we all agree to fix {{ jct}} so that we can use it in other situations when state-name shields are not acceptable because of their small size (i.e. exit lists)? -- MPD T / C 05:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thing about our state-specific shields, though, is that they're usually based on how the state actually makes its shields. Compare—
—the second shield is based on ODOT specs and while, yes, you can't make out the state name at 20px, there are other differences; the numbers are larger and closer together, and you can tell that difference at 20px. (I have to admit that since I've lived here so long the Oklahoma shield just looks so much more "right" to my eyes, even though I know the left one is technically the correct shield.)
I do agree that on national articles it looks a lot better to do the national shield across the board rather than have a smattering of different shields—
—
Scott5114
↗
[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]
20:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I think all for all exit lists using {{ jct}} should have the neutral shields. Again, it's too hard to read the state name. For use in {{ infobox road}}, I would go so far as to use only state-specific shields regardless of whether the state does or not. Whatever we decide as a consensus should be consistent across every state and enumerated plainly so there's no mistaking the intent. -- Fredddie ™ 06:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
All now redirect to Template:Infobox road/Interstate/shield Interstate. -- NE2 07:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Can somebody clsoe this discussion?-- FR W Y 23:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do not close this discussion. I will comment within the hour. Sswonk ( talk) 23:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I am closing this thread. There is further, earlier material located in Archive 14. The consensus there appears to be in opposition to changing any existing generic shields to state shields, which is why I responded to Fredddie above. Please read that thread carefully before continuing at WP:USRD/S. Sswonk ( talk) 06:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge – Cumberland, Maryland)#Notability discussion. -- Polaron | Talk 16:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed recently that someone changed the state specific interstate shields in the infobox junction lists. Can this be changed back? As it stands now it's inaccurate using the generic shields. I'd change it back myself but I don't have the knowledge of where and how the change was made. Gateman1997 ( talk) 23:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Virginia Route 817 – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Currently ACR and GAN are backlogged. Articles are remaining there for too long. I am proposing a few changes needed to address this issue:
Notes: This would only apply to new nominations; nominations already made would be unaffected. Also, item #3 only carries the weight of a suggestion; an editor can nominate more than 5 USRD articles at a time, but it would not carry the blessing of the project. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's a radical idea. NE2, maybe you should start reviewing some articles at both forums? Seriously though, there is one editor with almost a dozen current GANs. My personal experience is that when there are that many nominations in one category from one editor, I tend to skip ALL of them and do reviews for other editors. As much as I nominate at GAN, I try to review there too. Same with ACR, although my focus has been more GAN-oriented with the current county challenge. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 04:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 337 (Florida) -- NE2 01:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
There were a few ACRs that were voided after NYSR left the project back in September. Now that they have returned, what should be done with these ACRs? In my opinion, they should not be subjected to a full ACR; but they never did meet the ACR qualifications, so there should be some form of review. Any comments? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 November 26 - random images related to U.S. roads -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Per an ongoing discussion at WT:OR I have proposed an essay/policy on the appropriate usage of maps as sources in wikipedia articles. The draft is here User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox, please discuss any objections and could someone with more experience provide input on what is next? Dave ( talk) 21:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Do we consider these notable enough for their own articles? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scenic route -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Q: There is a big push in Wikproject Utah to tag all articles with geo coordinates. I suspect this is a co-ordinated effort as wikiproject Nevada also seems to have a smaller push. Even some of the articles without literal co-ordinates are getting tagged, (i.e. mountain ranges are getting tagged with the co-ordinates of either the geographical center or alongside a prominent peak, etc.) Should road articles be geo-tagged? I.E. should we pick a bend in Logan Canyon and tag U.S. Route 89 in Utah or even U.S. Route 89 with those co-ordinates? or should roads be tagged by their southern/western termious? or not at all? Dave ( talk) 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Most roads articles have a list of junctions. An alternative might be to put coordinates for the more major (or even all for short routes) of these junctions. Then one can use the geogrouptemplate to show a map of all the coordinates. -- Polaron | Talk 22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
No, no, no, no, no. C L — 05:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah every junction would be overkill. I think it's between the center of a route or the endpoints, my preference being the center. Dave ( talk) 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the point. There are two purposes for adding coordinates to articles:
The former is not generally helpful for linear features, at least those without well-defined division points (e.g. passenger railroads with stations, which have their own articles anyway; canals with locks; and possibly freeways with interchanges). Usually the reader would be better off picking a community the road passes through, going to its article, and then locating the road based on the route description. The main exception is for places related to the highway that won't have separate articles, such as Ridge Route#Description - but these are coordinates of locations mentioned, not of the road itself. I would make an exception for cases like New Jersey Route 59, where the road is essentially a railroad crossing.
The latter is completely and utterly useless for a road. If a service can display our coordinate data, it should be able to show a street map, which will actually show where the road goes and not just one point on it. If we could include and services would support full linear data, it would be a different issue entirely, but that's a different issue entirely
and would probably be done top-down (I could probably convert the GIS data I created for several states, for instance). --
NE2
05:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
←The wider issue of coordinates for roads and other linear features is under discussion, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear. See also the table at M6 motorway#Junctions. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 15#Category:Bannered Interstate Highways. — CharlotteWebb 11:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Future_road -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 03:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I just listed Category:Interstate highways concurrent with another numbered highway in its entirety at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 19#Category:Interstate highways concurrent with another numbered highway in its entirety. Feel free to comment -- KelleyCook ( talk) 21:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Currently there is an ACR and peer review open for California State Route 78. The ACR has been dormant for a while and needs some comments. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Am I correct in saying this? [4] -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 24 - {{ Number roads}} and {{ Roads in Alabama}} and {{ Project U.S. Roads/Newsletter}}. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Howdy, A couple of events with Interstate 70 in Utah appearing on the main page has brought this issue back into the spotlight.
Background (for those not familiar): Per WP:BOLDTITLE (explained in more detail at WP:Stop bolding everything), articles with a descriptive title, rather than a literal title, do not need to have the title repeated in bold in the lead sentence. The intent is to avoid having redundant wording in the lead sentence or having text which is both bolded and linked (which is a frequent violation of the WP:MOS). This has resulted in most articles about a single state section of a multi-state highway having no bold title, which has attracted attention at both WP:FAC and frequent reverts from people not understanding the policy or reasoning. Examples include the current iterations of Interstate 15 in Arizona (no bold title) or Interstate 15 in California (in violation of the MOS, with text both bolded and linked).
The Meat: While I-70 was on the main page, confusion by those not familiar with US highways resulted in a change in the lead, which may result in a compromise to end this controversy. Some readers left comments on the talk page explaining how they were confused, because I-70 is in Pennsylvania, etc. so what's this article saying about Utah. The result is the lead of the article now reads:
Interstate 70 (I-70) is a highway in the United States connecting Utah and Maryland. The Utah section runs east–west for.....
Interstate 70 no longer requires a link, because of the link in the disclaimer. And the lead could be changed to bold text, to satasfy those with an urgent need to bold something. I.E.
Interstate 70 (I-70) is a highway in the United States connecting Utah and Maryland. The Utah section runs east–west for.....
What say ye? Should this be our new standard? At a minimum I agree the disclaimer is appropriate and should be incorporated project wide on similar articles. Dave ( talk) 18:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No. -- NE2 23:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Should San Diego Freeway be a disambiguation page, like [5]? I don't know why it links to I-405 when SD Freeway also includes the segment of I-5. Mgillfr ( talk) 18:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I voted re-direct on the AfD for San Diego Freeway. I stand by that vote. IF someone were to write a solid B class article about the San Diego Freeway that was not redundant with the I-405 article, I would probably vote to keep it. However, every iteration of the article so far, has been redundant to, or directly lifted from, the I-405 article. I don't see much value in a disambiguation page, as the first paragraph of I-405 clears up any ambiguity pretty well. My advice, if you feel passionately that San Diego Freeway deserves its own article, develop the article in a sandbox, then move it over. If it was well written, sourced, and not redundant with I-405, it would not be deleted. That would be quite a challenge. Dave ( talk) 01:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm going to start it to get it over with (since I don't think its been covered here yet). I've been doing a lot of work on the what is now the Special route page, and I think this term should be applied as the preferred term (unless it just wont fit) throughout the Wikipedia articles dealing with the topic for a variety of reasons that I will cover. So, you're asking, what is the problem? Well, everyone knows that there is something in common with Business routes, Bypass routes, Temporary routes, Alternate routes, Scenic routes, Connector routes, etc, etc, but it is rare to find a source that gives the exact term. So, after much research, though not Original Research, I've determined that SPECIAL ROUTE is current correct term. The unfinished discussion at Talk:Special route provided the starting point. Here are my points:
"Bannered" is a neologism, popularized by Robert Droz on his website: Alternate U S Highways: Bannered Routes... Mapsax ( talk) 20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to add my two cents... I have to agree with Mapsax that "Bannered Highway" is a neologism. I have maintained my own highways-related websites for more than a decade, have been a "student" of transportation systems for three decades and work alongside transportation planners on a daily basis, and the only place I have ever seen "Bannered Highway" is in conjunction with Robert Droz' website, as noted above... CBessert ( talk) 04:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
So, there's my case to WP:USRD. Go to Talk:Special route to see full comments from others. Post new comments here. Hopefully, there won't be much fuss on this. -- Triadian ( talk) 08:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/L3121_road - might be interesting. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an announcement for the USRD/CRWP Cup contest, which aims to improve USRD/CRWP article quality and participation. All editors are welcome to participate. See User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup for more info. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The state I'd drop would be the 3 road articles in California I'm currently working on (2 to GA, 1 is a GA but could improvement), does that affect your decision =-)
Now that the newsletter is no more, and has been replaced with a blog that is updated as needed, is there still a purpose to the News section of the portal? I observe that the news is not updated as frequently as the blog, and when it is, the news item is also listed on the blog. Should we redirect this section? Dave ( talk) 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
While editing recently, I noticed I used the word "route" four times in one sentence. It's hard to use the common synonym "highway", so anyone know of some words that might help out? -- Triadian ( talk) 01:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The idea of a USRD meetup has been floated a few times, and nobody really came to a consensus on a location, but after the Chicago meet (which several USRD members attended) I have been kicking around the idea of a road meet in Oklahoma City. Since several members of the project have expressed interest in attending such a meet to me on IRC, what I'm planning on doing is running a "normal" road meet, then after dinner do a USRD workshop. This will have the benefit of attracting normal roadgeeks to the meet so we can possibly "recruit" them (hey, more editors would always be a help!)
OKC has never had a road meet before, so this will be a great opportunity to take a look at several of the interesting things around the city (by "interesting" I will usually mean "of a level of quality that will make most roadgeeks phone MoDOT and apologize for all the nasty things they said about them" ;) ) In addition, there is an opportunity to explore the I-40 realignment south of downtown OKC (which will be handled in a style similar to the I-64 tour at the St. Louis meet) and the first stages of the I-35 widening project in Norman set to kick off in March.
So as to attract more people from around the country, the meet will take place over two days. If you attended the Chicago meet, you'll be familiar with what I'm planning. So far the tentative dates are June 26th and 27th, a Friday and Saturday. I will probably stick with these dates unless there is a huge number of people who would want to attend but couldn't because of the dates.
I will be maintaining a webpage containing the most recent plans for the meet. It's at [9]—this page contains the dates and also the basic list of things we will be taking a look at. If you're interested in attending the meet, it makes for a handy bookmark. For those of you who like clinching interstates and counting counties, attending both days of the meet will clinch you two interstates (I-235 and I-240) and five counties. If you have suggestions as to stuff you'd like to have added to the tour, feel free to make suggestions and I'll see how we can fit it in.
Thanks for your interest! — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Are edits such as this compliant with WP:ELG? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
See County Road 337 (Florida) (2nd nomination). -- Son ( talk) 14:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 97 (Rockland County, New York) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
[10] Any thoughts? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The WP:USRD/ELG says that service areas and bodies of water are acceptable within reason. Other items seen in USRD article are named bridges, tunnels, freeway/non-freeway boundaries, and state lines. What else is acceptable? mountain passes? At issue is the A Class Review for U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. In the current iteration of the article, there is a separate table listing the named mountain passes crossed by the highway, as there are 17, too many to detail in prose. The suggestion has been made to merge this table with the major intersections table. A crude mock up of what this table would look like is at User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox. It needs work, it was a quick merge of the two tables. Please compare this with the article and provide feedback. Dave ( talk) 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
County Route 35 (Warren County, New York) contains the following:
Now, if you look at our National Bridge Inventory article, "many records within the NBI were inaccurate or out of date". In addition to being a large government database, and therefore already presumed to have typos and other such errors, we have a reliable source stating that these errors are common. I removed this sentence, and was reverted. So I'm taking it here for more input. Do we want to go down the road of listing errors in databases, maps, or other products that refer to the road? -- NE2 16:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it notable, NO. Is it worth fighting about, NO. I casually suggest that both editors show a bit more maturity here. Dave ( talk) 17:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think an apparent error in the NBI database is worth noting unless CR 35 actually is old NY 35. Either way it's still kinda trivia and not really important to note. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
(moved from WT:USRD/MTF)
See User:Xenon54/Map tutorial. If it's possible, I'd like someone to check over it before I add it to WP:USRD/MTF. Thanks. Xenon54 ( talk) 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I wrote a program that generates the leaderboard automatically; it will now update every week. Please look over the leaderboard and make sure there are no errors. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I was discussing Wikipedia off-wiki and someone brought up that he'd like to see our articles include AADT data. While a few of our articles (usually FA-caliber) include this information, it's missing from the vast majority of our articles. I certainly think it's on-topic and could be included in articles, but the question is whether we should have a big push to get this included in the majority of articles (i.e. make it a requirement or at least a very strong suggestion for ascension up the class ladder).
If we are going to include it, question is, what do we do with it? Traffic counts vary at different locations along the route, of course. We could add two lines to the infobox to denote the high and low AADT and their locations. We could try working into the route description (possibly difficult to do since it would tend to make the writing formulaic). Or we could use a table and put it in its own section. Something like this...
Location | AADT |
---|---|
Vistafield | 12,000 |
Blagojeville | 9,200 |
Lupupsenburg | 10,100 |
Hoosin | 4,200 |
Saxeton | 950 |
Additions could include highlighting the low and high AADT in different colors. We could also float the table in the route description in place of the mileage table that's around in the national route articles instead of putting in its own section.
Another idea is to add an AADT column to the junction list. This would be less flexible because AADTs are not always collected at junctions.
What do you guys think? More work than it's worth? Or is it a good idea? Which one of these ideas is best, or do you have better ones of your own? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I've put AADT data in 2 articles, Interstate 70 in Utah, and Interstate 80 in Nevada, both as passing comments in the route description. Of the two I guess it does add some value. I'm working on 2 articles currently U.S. Route 50 in Nevada, which needs one more review at ACR (hint hint wink wink), and California State Route 14. I'll try the same as an experiment on those two and see how it goes. Dave ( talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 10:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this would be cool: what do you all say? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 09:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
For the last few months it seems that I have been the person behind trying to make sure GANs and ACRs are passed in a timely manner and that we don't get creamed at FAC. I have reviewed dozens of GANs over the last few months and was the primary person reviewing them before the Cup challenge. I was the one who made sure ACR kept moving and that it remained effective over the last few months when people just ignored it.
But when I try to get my own article reviewed through ACR people won't even tell me what the problems are with it. That stupid ACR has been open since OCTOBER 27. That is INEXCUSABLE. Furthermore, because of this and because few USRD people have commented on its FACs or peer reviews, it has failed FAC twice due to inactivity. On the second review, people didn't even fully review the article.
Therefore, effective immediately, I am withdrawing my participation in all GAN reviews, ACR reviews, and FAC reviews. I see no reason why I should work to review articles when I can't even get my own articles reviewed. As I have been the one propping up ACR for the last few months and reviewing a large percentage of GAN articles, ACR will probably collapse and GAN will get extremely backlogged. I'll leave it to you guys to figure out how to fix it. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I've always liked the idea of the articles you guys create about roads and highways, but it's taken me a long time to fit that sort of documentation in to my idea of what an encyclopedia is.
And what I've finally come up with surprised me a little bit. The sort of work you're doing here is actually in my estimation a form of what may be the most ancient type of encyclopedia in human history: the periplus or way-guide, which was a type of record created by the Phoenicians, Hellenic Greeks, and Romans that would contain a description of what was to be found if a traveller followed a particular road or coastline.
In particular, an article that lists out the highway exits or towns and cities a road passes through is especially similar to a periplus. If you'd care to see an example, I transcribed The Periplus of the Euxine Sea at Wikisource a while back.
Way to go, ladies and gentlemen. Kudos to you for linking Wikipedia in to one of the oldest human endeavors! -- ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
If putting a highway article up for GA review,....are maps necessary or just nice to have? Can an article missing a map fail? Or is it the same as images just good to have if available Kind Regardsn SriMesh | talk 03:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Recently, Hmains did an AWB run that removed the categories "U.S. Highways in X" and "Interstate Highways in X" from the category "State highways in X" and placed all three in "Roads in X". Looking at the original state of the category hierarchy, it appears that there was no universal usage across all states of placing the U.S. Highway and Interstate Highway categories under the state highway category. I have undone the changes for the Northeastern states. We probably need to make a collective decision as to whether the Interstate and U.S. Highway categories should be subcategories of the state highway category or should all three be equal under the "Roads in X" category. Note that one category talk page already has a comment agreeing with the change by Hmains. -- Polaron | Talk 21:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
My restorations of the original category structure were reverted by User:Hmains. I have undone the reverts but we probably need more people to comment on what an appropriate category struture would be for articles under the scope of USRD. -- Polaron | Talk 22:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Some chump who is probably the 75 IP is messing with the thumbnail shields. C L — 18:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Interstate_74_in_Iowa -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Without going into great detail, because alot of what happened is based on a private matter at home (a few admins have been filled in with more detail), I do want to apologize for my brother-in-law's actions over the last couple weeks and anything that might have happened months ago. Please disregard any points he may have made in this discussion that no one has found applicable to NY 382 or anywhere else for that matter. I take full responsibility for being stupid and not paying closer attention to his online activity. Please understand though that he has a mental illness that causes more problems than some out of bounds editing on Wikipedia. I extend an apology to User:Mitchazenia for his actions hurting this article's FA discussion, and also to User:Rschen7754 for his comments to you. I'm sure there are others that deserve and apology, and if I find out anything else, I definitely pass one along to you.
Personally, I am here in good faith and have been actively working on NY route pages for over 2 years. I created pages for Rockland County Routes and been helping to construct articles for NY State Routes. I have also uploaded a ton of various pictures from my travels and have assigned them to their appropriate pages.
If you have further questions, feel free to drop a comment on my talk page or hit the email function. -- Airtuna08 ( talk) 20:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I know they're necessary, but This is over the edge. If the route's short, and doesn't cross anything more than Interstate, US, State, or a major county route - meaning the only relavent junctions are the termini - I suggest we leave the list off altogether. — master son T - C 01:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd require them, simply because we can include any relevant street names, control cities, etc in the junction box that shouldn't be there in the infobox - even if the route has only two junctions, the termini. C L — 18:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
On another note, CASH is becoming a mess - I do think tightening down ELG may be necessary to stop this. Does anyone like or dislike that solution, or have any others to put on the table? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there any way to integrate use of a to shield with the jct template to make the current, untemplated process a bit less tedious? C L — 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I know TO plates aren't required, but I thought they would be nice in articles like Utah State Route 126, where at first glance it appears we have state routes cosigned to interstates. C L — 00:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I've always found the "first glance" thing to be a problem. -- MPD T / C 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Could I have some comments on the following edit histories: [11], [12], [13]. This user is not listening to comments on his talk page and is automatically revert-warring with anyone who reverts his edits, even if his own edits go against Wikipedia guidelines. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
IMO, writing [[Utah State Route 67|SR-67]] rather than [[SR-67 (UT)|SR-67]] is unnecessary and inflates the byte count of the article. I see no reason why redirects shouldn't be used when wikilinking other articles - it's simply more convenient. Seriously, people must have OCD to worry about trivial matters such as unredirecting the redirects. Oh brother - C L — 01:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Interstate 95 in Baltimore, Maryland. We need to stop this now. Please let this be a dream... — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
For the record the author did discuss this before creating the article [14] Dave ( talk) 05:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with this? It's no different from Cross Bronx Expressway, Oklahoma City Crosstown Expressway, and so on... -- NE2 07:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we do need to sit and talk about subarticles. I'll start the discussion when I return. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You need to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 74 in Iowa as a sign of things to come. The whole route of an interstate is notable, there is no question of that really, but the notability of individual sections is questionable. I made the following comment in that debate...
"Just a few comments from across the pond, if I make any incorrect comparisons, feel free to bring me up on this. I'd like to compare this to our M4 motorway, despite going through two countries (For this I'm treating England and Wales as equivalent to US states), the article is more coherent and easy to follow on a single page, rather than "M4 motorway in England" and "M4 motorway in Wales". After looking at Interstate 74 and its sub articles, if they were all to be merged into the single article and copyedited, it'd make a great article. As it is, the information is scattered and hard to follow. I also notice a couple of the sub articles are redirects to different roads entirely, this just adds to the confusion. Until today I didn't really know anything about I-74, and after reading these articles that situation hasn't really changed! An unwritten rule we have over here seems to be that a single route has a single article. Just thought a few comments from an uninvolved user may be beneficial."
The above comment fits nicely into this discussion, just substitute I-74 for any other interstate. As a collective group I urge you to all pull together and bring these articles into one, then (and only then), consider creating sub articles for notable sections (not necessarily states).
The subject of exit lists was bought up above, and in my opinion, in both UK and US road articles they are far too large, and possibly fall into the Travel Guide section of WP:NOT. I'm currently working on a much simplified version for UK motorways (see User:Jenuk1985/Junctions, very much a work in progress) which you could possibly modify for US usage when I am done. Somebody also mentioned about setting up an external wiki for information like that... go for it! That's what we did, and now we have http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki, only a couple of months old, but filling up fast! Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I experimented by merging all the I-44 pages ( I-44, I-44 (TX), I-44 (OK), I-44 (MO)) together. The result is User:Scott5114/I-44, which is a halfway decent article, except for the massive exit lists. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I looked for the diff for about half an hour, but I think I made this comment over two years ago when WP:SRNC was taking place. (Wow, it's really creeping me out that it's been that long since SRNC! And that I'm coming up on my four-year anniversary of joining Wikipedia! Anyway...) Basically, I said back in 2006 when the state-detail articles started to appear that they should be used when the main interstate article cannot reasonably hold the information. In other words, something like Interstate 95 could be split into sub-articles, but something like Interstate 8 could not. The running joke was having an article for Interstate 95 in the District of Columbia... for an 0.11 mile segment of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
Two and a half years later, we have several state-detail articles. Until very recently, we even had Interstate 74 in Iowa, an article for a 5.36 mile segment of Interstate. Really? Do we actually need an article for such a short segment when it can be merged with something else?
In the back of my mind over the last two years, I have noticed that we have been getting more and more state-detail articles. I-74 IA finally brought this to the forefront of my attention.
If all of the main Interstate articles were B-class, I would be okay with the proliferation of state-detail articles. But that is not the case. Look at Interstate 80 - a "B-class article" that is basically a glorified route description. No history whatsoever. Granted, there is no need for a junctions table - but could we ever send this to FA?
My view is that we should start merging some of our state-detail articles back into the main Interstate articles. I don't agree with Route description of Interstate 80 and History of Interstate 80 because it makes it seriously harder for somebody to bring such articles to GA or FA or even B-class - they have to know / find information about all the states on the Interstates' path. We also risk destroying a few of Dave's GAs and FAs to do this as well.
The system we currently have is not entirely broken. We have had some of these state-detail articles on the Main Page. - I see no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Where's the rationale in mergine U.S. Route 151's sub articles together? The WI one was big as it is, and I can surely find a good chunk of information to turn Iowa's into a decent B-class article. — master son T - C 04:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Seeing that the USRD notability standard was both terrible outdated, and missing any guidance on the subject, I did some moderate changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability. Although I recognize that some may be opposed to the changes I made, these are more or less the prevailing wisdom I've seen at the AfD and similar debates I've seen up to this point. Dave ( talk) 02:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
We have no support votes for the selected article or selected picture for Portal:U.S. Roads. Please send in your votes quickly so the portal can be updated! -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
A) No one maintains it.
B) Not a lot (less than 1000) of views (
876 views in February)
C) No one really cares for it anymore. –
CG
02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I am updating the portal now. Are we still planning on doing something different for April 1? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Business routes of Interstate 5. We need to stop this now. Please let this be a dream... -- NE2 01:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I am proposing that these two projects be merged into WP:USRD. Currently, their standards are incorporated into USRD, and those project pages are inactive. (I am NOT suggesting that state projects be merged into USRD). Are there objections? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Still supportive of the changes. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 06:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I know this is resolved now, but I'm just throwing in my approval. Originally it seemed the projects were grouped by highway type, with USRD's only purpose being to serve as the parent project. Over time, as the state highway projects evolved into projects covering all roads in their states, the grouping has become more per-jurisdiction. So this seems to be the logical conclusion of this trend, and also USRD can now serve its expected purpose of covering all roads on a national level. -Jeff (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The last couple days, I've been working on WP:USRD/R, and have a couple questions... First, is there a difference between redirect lists and completion lists? and Second, should the lists under USDR/R only have those roads which the redirects have not yet been completed?
I've been removing each route from it's list once the article and all redirects created, and it is listed on the "highways numbered XXX" list... I assumed this was what should be done, because (I assumed) the states that are redlinked on USRD/R have already been done... am I correct in doing so? should I be removing a road from the list once all redirects are finished, so that the list only shows those roads that still need redirects? - Adolphus79 ( talk) 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
While we are discussing New Jersey Route 180, I have to bring to attention another article that has its notability questioned, New York State Route 931F. This article is currently a GAN, and a previous editor who reviewed this article questioned its notability, placing a {{ notability}} tag at the top of this article and suggesting that it be merged into New York State Route 321. There are many well-written articles for New York reference routes that have reached GA status. I was just wondering if this article meets the requirements for notabiilty. It is well-referenced and uses historical maps and newspaper articles as sources rather than personal websites. I just want feedback so I can make a decision in whether to promote this article to GA or to possibly merge it into NY 321. Dough4872 ( talk) 15:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Everybody, Interstate 68 is about to fall off the end of the FAC queue, yet it has had no thorough review. Most of the votes are members of the USRD project that have just rubber-stamped a support vote. I think we need to get some real feedback and critiques up there fast or this might fail due to only having rubber-stamp approves. And yes, this is somewhat self-serving as I have a nomination behind this one =-) Dave ( talk) 14:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm just using these templates as it's easier to tell when an issue has been resolved. This does *not* mean that a discussion is archived or terminated; people can still comment. These templates are used at WP:ANI. Are there any objections to people adding them to sections here? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Would someone be willing to close out the CA 78 ACR? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The Articles section of this project page is out of date. We have FA's A's and GA's being made by project members at a rate now that this list is getting increasingly harder to maintain, and keep up to date. Should this section be pruned or eliminated entirely? Here's some random thoughts on the subject:
Dave ( talk) 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=aPTg2lwsQB7ZCT6P1YhqZA_3d_3d - This is entirely anonymous. This is just to see how we are doing as a project. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 19:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Would someone be willing to take care of this? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 18:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, is there a policy or agreement that says any numbered state route can get an article? I saw an article ( New Jersey Route 180), and I was surprised it existed, given how short it is (both the length of the actual route, and actual article). I was surprised, since the USRD notability policy said
Highways that have very little to say about them (i.e. those that are extremely short and have no historical significance) may be better suited to a list
Is it common to have an article like that? Just as an outsider, I thought it'd be logical to have something like that as part of New Jersey Route 72, of which a former alignment became 180. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that NJ 180 would fit better with NJ 72. The route description is too detailed, and the first two paragraphs of the history are about NJ 72. -- NE2 06:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
New Jersey Route 180 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- NE2 19:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
OK off that soapbox. Dave ( talk) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I decided to join the project, as I do have an interest in roads, and I think I can help out. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to seem like I'm bashing Mitchazenia, and I'm only bringing these articles up because I know him from the WP:WPTC, but it seems like these articles fall into the same bin. New Jersey Route 413 (could be merged with Pennsylvania equivalent?), New Jersey Route 184 (could be merged with NJ 440), New Jersey Route 159 (only uses a map, straight line diagram, and Alps), New Jersey Route 182 (same as last one), and New Jersey Route 161 (same). FWIW, they're all GA's, and they're all less than 1.5 miles long. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 04:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
[De-indent]Disagree. I think lists of minor highways serves a great purpose, the problem with that one is it was incomplete and had an undefined scope (just a hodgepodge list with no definition of what minor means). That page was essentially redone under the title of List of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions, by you nonetheless. I think this does have a purpose as the scope is defined, and it would be more silly to have stub articles on these. I have it on my get around to list essentially implement this on a county wide basis for Nevada where there are dozens of secondary and tertiary routes, each with their own stub article currently. I.E. Minor state routes in Washoe County, etc. Dave ( talk) 14:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I see Dave's comment in a few ways. However, trolling isn't one of them. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
OK Here's stab one of a summary. I think we're all mostly in agreement, just bickering over some minor differences.
Did I miss anything? Dave ( talk) 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[de-indent] added a 5th point to address these concerns. Also, amended text on points 3 and 4. Dave ( talk) 15:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess people think it's okay? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Claims have been raised that the USRD-CRWP WikiCup resulted in editors creating articles on low-importance routes just to get them to GA and get the 20 points. While this may have been a side effect of the result, this was not the intention of the WikiCup. The purpose of the contest was to increase editor activity and to get people editing USRD articles again, and improving quality (for, these low-importance articles as GAs are better than the same articles as stubs, at least). The USRD-CRWP Cup did increase editor activity and it did improve article quality (several articles that were Stub going to C or B) and did get people editing again, and therefore it was largely successful.
However, I do see the point regarding low-importance articles being raised to GA when we should be putting more of an emphasis on higher-importance articles. To that end, next year I will be putting some sort of a multiplier into effect so that these low-importance articles do not generate as many points as a mid- or high-importance article would. The results of this years' contest will not be changed, as that would result in my trying to change the rules after the contest ended (which would be... awkward). -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody with the time and abilities look into a request to improve the map on this article left at Talk:Utah State Route 128. I cannot right now. It is only a suggestion for improvement, not a defect or anything. Many thanks in advance. Dave ( talk) 19:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 31 (Suffolk County, New York) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to settle this issue once and for all as there are users edit warring: [15]. Personally, I prefer this way, but users have been edit warring up and down WP:CASH articles to enforce their own standard. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
So I'm guessing that it is okay to adjust ELG per the above discussion? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I post this here because this could have some implications for USRD articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario) (2nd nomination) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 174A (Sullivan County, New York) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Interstate 40 in Arizona has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Interstate 40 in Arizona/1. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The remaining three articles that were grandfathered in under the old A-Class system have been sent to ACR to ensure that they are really A-Class quality. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This won't be as involved as the GA one was (I hope). I'll just note things in the edit summary on the talk page if the article gets demoted. Now that we have a C-class not as many articles will be demoted as were in the past. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
List of articles that may not be notable:
I haven't forgotten about this - I hope to continue it soon. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Interstate 155 (Illinois) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I will be auditing the USRD GAs. I will take a brief look and make sure that a) the article meets USRD / MOS guidelines and that b) the article is of importance. If an article fails this, I will list it below. If the article is not improved within one week, I will send it to WP:GAR (which is a slow process, so you will still have time to fix it). Articles here may not follow WP:LEAD, may have sourcing issues, may not be comprehensive, may have notability issues, prose issues, etc. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The general rule is this: All the NJ ones have mileages that need to be removed from the lead; the rest need a better WP:LEAD; if there are other problems, I will say so. List:
Just curious, what's wrong with US-89 in Utah or UT 101? C L — 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This is why I would prefer that people who both nominate and review Good Article candidates work with articles outside the project. It does give some perspective that only staying in one project will not. I once proposed that nobody should review an article from a wikiproject they participate in. That was shot down, but it was encouraged to go slow and be a little tougher if reviewing an article in a project you participate in. It's easy for a roadgeek to miss flaws in a road article, such as neologisms, or inadequately explained ideas that to make sense to somebody familiar with the genre. Dave ( talk) 20:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a proposal to make. Articles like Delaware/Maryland Route 54 or Massachusetts/Rhode Island Route 114A seem to be outdated in the format of their title. Recently, New York & Vermont state crosses have been following a new format, seen at State Route 74 (New York – Vermont), which is a Featured Article, and State Route 346 (New York – Vermont), a good article. I think this format would be more encyclopedic, and it would help the name of the articles when it comes time to review them. Examples include:
Anyway, opinions are opened, and I am sure there are more that could be done. Mitchazenia : Chat Trained for the pen 15:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't include State Highway 41 (Washington – Idaho), WA uses State Route, ID uses State Highway; also Idaho is the southern terminus and WA/ID is northern, switch the name around! – CG 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:MOSDASH, there should be spaces between the state name and the en dash only if there is a space within one or both of the names. Thus, "(Delaware – Maryland)" should be "(Delaware–Maryland)" while "(Massachusetts – New Hampshire)" is correct. – T M F 02:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
So... -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I will go on record saying that I do not believe that SRNC should be revisited. The project nearly went belly up during SRNC, and I am very reluctant to go there again. Yes, my reasoning is primarily political on this one, but sometimes political reasons outweigh other concerns, as they do in this case. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Related note: Talk:State Route 314 (New York–Vermont)/GA1 - should highways on two routes that do not form one continuous highway be merged? While NY 314 is a single highway, terminating at the ferry to VT 314, VT 314 is a loop off of US 2 that intersects the ferry during its routing. Neither endpoint of VT 314 is at the ferry leading to NY 314; thus I don't see this as a single, continuous highway as the title implies. – T M F 19:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this discussion has been split into two parts: one debating what the naming convention should be for multi-state routes and one debating when routes should be merged. Although I will take part of the blame for the split, I do feel that both points need to be discussed to prevent what happened with NY-VT 314 (which shouldn't have been merged and I really don't know how to disassemble it). For that reason, I'll launch a new discussion in this section about when they should be merged and leave the original section for the original topic (the naming convention).
Ideas I have and others have posted above for merging:
As for these other multi-state ones that have been proposed for a merge, if a decent article can be made for both of them (and decent ≠ Good Article), then they shouldn't be merged. Feel free to discuss. – T M F 06:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
There's also stuff that exists such as North Carolina Highway 106 - Georgia State Route 246. – T M F 06:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I proposed a merge for it; discussion is at Talk:Interstate 87. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 19:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
See Template talk:U.S. Roads WikiProject - one user wants to convert the template to {{ WPBannerMeta}}. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So... what do we do with this? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I could be convinced either way.
Argument to keep: This highway has a fair number of bridges that are clearly notable by any standard.
Argument to delete: The article, as written, has an arbitrary definition of notability (>100 ft.) with no source justifying that arbitrary decision. (We just decided this was a bad thing for list of minor highways articles, so I'm assuming it's the same with bridges.) If switched to a non-arbitrary standard of notability, such as inclusion in the National Register of Historic places, this table gets shortened to about 10 entries. If the standard is bridges by Conde McCullough, this is redundant, as the article about him already lists these.
If someone wants to clean up and keep this article, here is a quick observation of other issues:
Dave ( talk) 18:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This is what it used to look like. I think the current list is better than that. If you have a better idea for which bridges to include, go for it, but there are some notable ones like the Brush Creek Bridge, Necarney Creek (Sam Reed) Bridge, and New Youngs Bay Bridge that don't satisfy your criteria. There's also a WikiProject Bridges. -- NE2 21:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, to expand on my mention of WikiProject Bridges, I'm not sure why "we" as a project would do anything with this. -- NE2 23:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
What do we do about the article: nothing. It's not tagged under USRD, so we as a project don't need to do anything with it. Suggested improvements are all valid, but they should be passed along to one of the projects that has tagged it, unless we as a project decide that the US 101 in the name is enough to warrant tossing a USRD/ORSH tag on it too. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 06:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of roads in Baltimore County, Maryland - Dough4872 ( talk) 14:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 17 (Elkhart County, Indiana) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York State Route 399 (disambiguation) -- NE2 23:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
List of numbered highways in Monroe, Washington is up for peer review. Link. – CG 16:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
See List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York for details. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Several county route merges have been proposed at WT:NYSR#Open merge proposals. One specific discussion is ongoing at Talk:County Route 48 (Suffolk County, New York)#Merge. Whether to merge or not is apparently contentious. It would be greatly appreciated if we can get a wider opinion on whether these proposed merges are reasonable or not. Any alternative suggestions are also welcome. -- Polaron | Talk 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Earlier this evening, I finished working on an expansion of Nevada State Route 376. Prior to my first edit of the article in April, this article was clearly a stub and was rated as such. With my expansion, the current version is probably "C" or "B" class.
Knowing that I have improved the article, I could easily go in and reassess the article to "C" class. However, since I was the primary editor behind improving the article's status, couldn't that technically be perceived as a conflict of interest? Alternately, I could tag the talk banner with "reassess=yes". The one time I recall doing that for another NV SR article, it was several days before someone looked at it. I've never seen any articles listed at Category:U.S. Roads project articles needing reassessment any time I've checked, and wonder whether other editors actually use this feature. (I should note that I have reassessed my own articles in the past, mainly before I was aware of the "reassess=yes" tag.)
So I guess I'm looking for some clarification on what other road editors do once they've improved an article, and what other peoples' thoughts are on how articles (below GA-class) are/should be assessed. -- LJ ( talk) 06:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Washington State Route 203 is up for peer review. I am also here to annouce a new contest: The Good Articles Across America Challenge (GAAA Challenge), where you write a road article for each of the 50 states and get it to GA standards! Sign up by June 15 and the contest will begin on the 20th! – CG 21:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The contest is horribly structured. We have too many contests open; please wait to start a new one and in the meantime, restructure your own. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me just point out that I'm not against contests, but we don't need to spend time setting up and running contests all the time when we could use that time to improve articles. I'll admit that I'm frustrated that I have an article at FAC for a second time, that has all of the "issues" fixed from the first FAC, and there are editors pushing small articles through GAN for the sake of a contest. That doesn't mean that getting GAs is a bad thing. Getting editors to flex their editing muscle and write quality articles in other areas of the country is also a very good thing as well. I guess we should channel the enthusiasm and energy into getting as many articles up to as good of quality as possible. USRD has tagged some 10,000 articles and it would be nice to get them destubbed, expanded and revised to good quality. For every U.S. Route 50 in Nevada article out there, there are several articles like South Carolina Highway 363. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 15:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
[16] There appears to be some useful information in here for the states that responded, including New York (pp. 36-69). -- NE2 13:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Could someone take care of updating the portal for June? Unfortunately I think I'm getting sick, otherwise I would do it. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007, the articles Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania and Interstate 476 have been re-reviewed against current GA standards. The articles will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the articles will be delisted. -- ErgoSum• talk• trib 00:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I was just attempting to amend the wikitable on Washington State Route 542 to include Abbotsford, British Columbia as a city2= entry following Sumas, Washington (Abbotsford is just across the border with Sumas, which is a border crossing). What comes out is Abbotsford, British Columbia, Washington which clearly won't work. Then I realized that in the same table, and no doubt in other Washington state tables attempting to target Vancouver (which is an undisambiguated article-title for the BC city) winds up being the target for Vancouver, Washington, which is at the other end of I-5 and far from teh areas where Vancouver will be targeted. So I puzzled on how to amend it - because if I take out the state=WA switch then "542" will not have a state attached to it. There are numerous highway articles with this table that are in range of the Canadian border, not just in t Vancouver - Lower Mainland area, all along the Canada-US border. So how can this table be improved or adapted to deal with cross-border locations; and in this case to prevent mention of "Vancouver" to directing to the wrong city? Skookum1 ( talk) 21:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
As part of the efforts over the past couple of days to improve I-476, the control city box that was on the page was removed. This is probably one of the few parts of the early USRD standard that's still in existence today. I know we came to a consensus a year or so ago that "communities" and "major cities" boxes should be removed from articles; however, I believe (and this is going from memory) that Interstate Highway control cities boxes were omitted from the discussion because they seemed to serve a purpose (indicating the control cities along the route). Since consensus can change, and since it was removed on I-476, I figured I'd bring the issue back up for discussion. – T M F 05:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The previous discussion referenced above: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 10#Major cities box. – T M F 06:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems like something that should be in the introduction to the article, as a sentence describing what major cities are on the road. As for control cities, many states don't strictly follow the AASHTO list, and others flood it with insignificant towns ( Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania). -- NE2 15:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that we limited this field to incorporated places since unincorporated places don't have set boundaries, therefore it would be impossible to determine (or source) whether an interchange was located within that particular place. See the discussion here: User talk:Holderca1#I-75 in Florida. -- Holderca1 talk 17:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this is being taken way to seriously. I don't see how we could agree to a non-Orwellian rule that could cover all the bases. Even in incorporated metropolitan areas, I've seen situations where an exit is technically within one city, but is near the city limits with little or no access to that city and for all practical purposes is in a neighboring city. ( Interstate 215 (Utah) is an example where mild edit-warring has occurred over this). Combining this with the example you list, with unincorporated areas, that do not have strictly defined limits, and at some point common sense has to reigh. My advice is to list what is usefull, even if not 100% technically accurate. IMO we should place article utility over listing every podunkvile that nobody's ever heard of and/or omitting Miami as a location, as the intersection is technically 300 feet from the city limits and in reality in a different city. Dave ( talk) 19:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm definitely against using unincorporated locations as locations in an exit or junction list. I've been replacing them with the incorporated towns that they're located in as I clean up New York articles. However, since some are "notable", what I usually do is indicate the unincorporated location in the notes column. – T M F 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently, I have been improving the article Interstate 695 (Maryland), which is the Baltimore Beltway. Looking at both Wikipedia:WikiProject Roads in Maryland/Editing guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards, they do not provide for how the route description of a beltway should be ordered. I am assuming that it is to start from milepost zero and continue clockwise, in accordance with AASHTO guidelines. However, there are exceptions with other beltways, such as Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) where mileposts and exit numbers are organized counterclockwise (this is due to the concurrency with I-95). I feel that the ordering of the route description in beltway articles is an important convention that has been overlooked and am opening a discussion to see if we can establish one. Dough4872 ( talk) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's an actual example of the first hypothetical case in my comment above. Say I was to write an article about McCarran Boulevard in Reno, NV. McCarran isn't a beltway/freeway, but it is a major arterial forming a full-circle belt route through the Reno-Sparks area. The northeast quarter of the loop consists of the entirety of SR 650, the northwest quarter is the entirety of SR 651, and the south half is locally maintained (and was previously part of the two routes). Mileposts of SR 650 and SR 651 begin at the US 395 interchange on the north end, with SR 650 mileposts increasing clockwise and SR 651 mileposts increasing counterclockwise. So where would I begin with the route description in this case? This is an article I've actually thought about creating (merging two related articles into one more comprehensive article), so responses and suggestions might be helpful both for me and in the overall discussion. -- LJ ( talk) 02:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A bit of good news to report - an exemption has been added to the Commons whitelist that once again allows shields that use the "<state abbreviation>-<number>.svg" convention to be uploaded to commons. These shields had been blocked since sometime in the winter because their names were getting caught in the regex of the new Commons blacklist. Everything should be good now. – T M F 20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Among my travels, and going through the photos I have, I have noticed a strange dysfunction in terms of what shields we are using (Image:Circle sign x.svg) and the shields that the New Jersey Department of Transportation use.
Here is an example situation:
NJ Route 184
The shields we use on Wikipedia currently:
The shields that I have seen in real life:
Now, if you look carefully, specifically on this one, can you see the difference in the two shields? If you look here, you should be able to find more examples.
Now, we have the New Jersey shields still that we originally used, which I think is a little better to standards than what we have, seen by this example:
If we adjust the NJ 184 shield above this comment, we should have a perfect rendition of the shields seen. I am proposing that for Jersey, we stop using the Circle sign shields and revert back to the original.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 20:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
While we are discussing New Jersey shields, here is a similar case I noticed with Delaware:
The shield currently used for Delaware Route 15:
Three examples of DE 15 shields in the field:
The original shield used for DE 15:
Notice from the pictures how the font on the DE 15 shields match closer to the original Delaware-specific shield used rather than the newer one used. Many state route shields I have seen throughout Delaware closer match the original style used and I feel it might be better to switch back to this design to closer match what is seen in the field. Dough4872 ( talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The guy may have moved onto a new IP by now, but it looks like he's trying to make a comeback: Special:Contributions/99.53.195.153. If anyone here follows Missouri, be sure to keep an eye out for suspicious edits. – T M F 21:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
These reviews are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.
Thanks to User:Dough4872, Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania and U.S. Route 50 have been improved and kept. Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) still has 3 days left, and should be easy enough for anyone willing and knowledgeable about the sources needed for this article. United States Numbered Highways still has one day left, if an editor is willing to at least start working on it then I'm willing to extend the hold time an extra seven days. But if no action is taken then it will likely be delisted tomorrow. -- ErgoSum• talk• trib 14:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Both of these should be automatic deletes but here they are: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 7#Template:Jctint/noaccess and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 7#Template:Jctint/deleted. All uses of both have been phased out. – T M F 22:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Nergaal has nominated List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
File:Orange_Belt.gif is currently slated to be deleted (and may be by the time this gets read) for a lack of copyright information. However, wouldn't the design of the Orange Belt shield (and all the other Pittsburgh belts excluding the newer Purple one) fall under the "lack of originality" category, putting it in the public domain? If so, I'll look into making SVGs for the original belts. – T M F 04:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I have run, now, into 2 states to where routes maintained by the National Park Service have been given designations. The first I know, is National Park Service Route 615, which is signed, but covered in County Route 615 (Sussex County, New Jersey). Here's my question, are these routes notable as they are run by the feds? So far I know of 4 - 3 in NY, and 1 in NJ:
What's the notability on these?3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
See Special:Contributions/67.85.77.39. The last few edits seem odd, I don't know how active the state project is so I posted it here. Sswonk ( talk) 00:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York) – T M F 16:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 35 (Warren County, New York) -- NE2 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a concern that needs to be brought up with junction lists used in roads that consist of both freeway and non-freeway segments. In the GA review for New York State Route 104, I was concerned with the Major intersections section consisting of three tables, with one covering a freeway portion of the route as an exit list and two covering non-freeway portions of the route as a junction list. While this was done to be compliant with ELG standards, as exit lists are not allowed to have the colors used for concurrencies, I do not like this format. In the article New Jersey Route 29, which also consists of both freeway and non-freeway portions, I used an exit list that listed all the exits along the freeway portion and only major junctions along the non-freeway portion. A column span was used to indicate where the freeway portion ended. No colors were used to highlight concurrencies, such as the one with NJ 179. I feel the ELG should be changed to both deprecate colors used in junction lists for concurrencies as well as call for routes with both freeway and non-freeway portions to be merged into one list and am opening a discussion to see what should be done. Dough4872 ( talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't see the need of multiple formats, use the ELG format for all junction tables. -- Holderca1 talk 17:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a poll at WT:ELG to attempt to resolve this issue. Dough4872 ( talk) 02:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have brought this up before, but more of PennDOT is using the SR (State Route) name for the roads. Other than in real life and on sign evidence, its really time we do two things. The first - something I want done - a change of the SRNC decision for Pennsylvania, and second - the rename of the project back to its original name - Pennsylvania State Highways (it was moved by Son in 2008 w/o consensus). I note NE2's opinion from last time, but I refuse to let this dicussion end with just him. I want an actual valuable discussion. Mitch/ HC32 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Back on topic here - I still believe, even though we run into the problem with 380 or 400 that the articles should follow PennDOT suit and be Pennsylvania State Route 380 or Pennsylvania Traffic Route 380 (I think for the former, 380 & 283 can be given exceptions). However, I want a consensus outside of NE2 and a discussion outside of NE2. Let's hear some other voices. Mitch/ HC32 01:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Someone has created a (pretty good) article for Zion-Mount Carmel Highway. Problem, this is a section of Utah State Route 9, and in fact is the heart of the highway and what gives it notability. There is precedent for this with Pasadena Freeway and California State Route 110. However, in this case the two articles are significantly redundant (albeit IMO one is better written). I'm not sure what to do here, should they be combined, or improve the SR-9 article to not be redundant and link to this article for the portion in Zion National Park. I've not done a lot of research on this highway, but I do believe it would be possible to have two non-redundant articles. Dave ( talk) 22:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
By the way, how's this for a notability standard: if Google's autosuggest feature knows the name, it's probably notable
--
NE2
00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Could I get a few comments on these edits? Revert warring to his particular version of the article - going against the FAC recommendations for the R mileposting, as well as reinstating the major cities box and using a partial mileage, after being told several times not to do so Changing the guideline to suit his own edits without consensus. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 17:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Please read my section on ANI; in short, there has been a lot of revert warring and crummy edits in CASH lately, and this needs to be stopped. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is he putting the major cities box in the history section? If you are going to add it in there, at least put it in the right place. -- Holderca1 talk 12:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This violates the recent change in ELG: [20]. Any comments? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
And [23] sums up his attitude. I'm considering filing a user RFC, but I don't have the time to write it up. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 50. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently, I have added traffic counts to articles about roads in Maryland from the Highway Location Reference by the MDSHA as part of a drive to improve them to GA-class. However, concerns arose in both the GA review of Maryland Route 213 and in the A-class review of Baltimore-Washington Parkway about the apparent overuse of the traffic counts. Dave floated the idea of using a table to display these traffic counts. I am opening a discussion here to discuss what should be done with the usage of traffic counts in articles and to see if we can establish a USRD convention onto how traffic counts should be handled, whether it be through a table or some other means. Dough4872 ( talk) 01:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The recent edits that Mitchazenia ( talk · contribs) made are a problem. [24] [25] This is not the notation that WP:CASH normally uses. NE2 ( talk · contribs) originally set these guidelines, which I believe should be the polices of WP:ELG. Mgillfr ( talk) 23:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Mitchazenia, WP:PRETTY just states that neatness is not the primary factor for any article. But that does not mean that editors cannot have the option of making an article look neat. Mgillfr ( talk) 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This crap is why I'd prefer a universal ELG standard we can fall back on.... Dave ( talk) 01:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the step of opening Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mgillfr. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Mitch needs to watch his capitalization and spacing - "Interchange;Right-of-way continues as Araz Road"? This is really a case-by-case thing, as I don't think anyone would want to put the NJ 42 continuation of I-76 in the right column. -- NE2 07:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The title of the section describes my proposal fairly succinctly: I would like to create a task force of WP:NY that would deal with all roads in New York. This task force, as I envision it, would also be a subproject of USRD and a co-parent project of NYSR. This move is needed as right now, many items are tagged as being within the scope of the New York State Routes WikiProject that do not fall within the project's defined scope. And, no, this move is not to "game the system": in fact, many of the articles I speak of are fairly high up the assessment ladder, including many Good Articles. The details of my proposal are as follows:
Thoughts on this proposal are welcomed. – T M F 03:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
While not as developed as TMF's idea, how about a task force under USRD for county roads, nationwide. Since most county roads aren't notable, this task force wouldn't/shouldn't be swamped with articles, but it would provide a consistent place for developing ideas on what county-maintained roads articles should be covered, any variations in formats and the like. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 03:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not bring WP:NYSR back under P:USRD like it was before? Ngs61 ( talk) 13:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Technically, Arden Valley Road is considered a New York State Park Road, just like Bay Parkway (Jones Beach). Therefore this and other roads like it should be included. ---- DanTD ( talk) 22:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I read the above discussion as so far including two supporters for a Task Force of wp:NY that would address all notable roads in New York ( User:TwinsMetsFan (the proposer) and User:Mitchazenia). And I support it too, so that it could focus on any notable County roads and other notable roads that do not fall within USRD's scope, and for other reasons. That makes three supporters. Although I don't have standing as a wp:USRD member to comment (I am not a USRD member, unless i have listed myself at NYSR and if that counts), but i am a wp:NY member. I don't want to fragment this discussion, but it would seem natural for this proposal to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York, and/or for notice of discussion here to be posted at wp:NY, wp:SYR, wp:capdis, wp:LONGI, wp:NYC, and wp:hvny where many potentially interested editors would be reached. doncram ( talk) 21:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone comment on the recent edits to CA 78? Mgillfr continues to revert to his preferred version, violating both the FAC recommendations as well as MOS regarding italics. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
(od)Mgillfr: Your new wording for the footnote is ok, but needs to be made singular, as the note applies to each postmile individually. I.E. it should say "Postmile is measured from State Route 86." or similar. Dave ( talk) 23:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! What is the consensus for listing postmiles in the county column in California? Is there consensus to do this? -- Son ( talk) 15:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Golden State Freeway -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
See WT:HWY. Dough4872 ( talk) 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Route 199 in California Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Route 199 in Oregon -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Featured today on the main page in the "Did you know..." section, Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony. This is not currently mentioned in the Interstate 195 (Florida) stub article if anyone wants to take a stab at including it. Me, I don't know if it fits in a stub, so I'm putting it as an FYI here. Sswonk ( talk) 04:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, someone added it three hours ago as a "See also" at the bottom, I missed it. Sswonk ( talk) 04:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think there needs to be some kind of a rough guideline for what can be listed whenever a Major Cities box is used. For example, this (current) revision of Interstate 15 lists Shelby, Montana (2000 Census population: 3,217) in the Major Cities box, but does not list Mesquite, Nevada (2000 pop.: 9,389) or North Las Vegas, Nevada (2000 pop.: 115,488). That page also lists Baker, California, which isn't even an incorporated city. WP:USRD/STDS#Major cities doesn't provide any guidance on this issue. I think we'd all agree that only incorporated cities (or equivalents) should be listed in the box. But the main question is, what constitutes a "major" city? Do any of the state projects have guidelines they follow? Should we even worry about developing a threshold for this? -- LJ ( talk) 04:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please point me to a nice simple article (more than one would be fine) of good quality that we in Australia could look to as an example of how road articles should be constructed? Most of ours are frankly monstrosities for one reason or another (see Tullamarine Freeway, Ipswich Motorway, EastLink (Melbourne) and Hume Highway) and I'm interested in getting a project together to reform them. Orderinchaos 17:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
(od)Above are examples of articles that have passed a Featured Article Candidate review. Another idea is to participate in a review of an article that is currently nominated for a promotion in status. That may give you some ideas what stays and what gets cut out as articles are improved. The U.S. Roads Wikiproject maintains a list of nominated articles at the bottom of the project page ( WP:USRD). There is a project for highways worldwide at WP:HWY, but I don't know how active it is, or if they maintain such a list. Dave ( talk) 19:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I've implemented new formatting for the postmile concurrencies on the California State Route 78 article. Does this look fine? There are still some things I'm not fully comfortable with in the current implementation. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Another option is the current setup that California State Route 115 uses. Is this any better? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I concur that CA-115 is the better of the two. With that said, anything to just make this go away. We're on, what, year three of the California exit list edit wars? I'm surprised this hasn't made WP:LAME yet. Dave ( talk) 00:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems intuitive to place a "78" before those that have 78 on the physical postmile. Maybe it would be better to describe what an extra number means in the note? -- NE2 02:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
So has there been a consensus on this yet? Whatever comes out of this will likely be implemented elsewhere, and the preferred standard will need to be documented somewhere. -- LJ ( talk) 00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we move Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania Roads back to its original name? Most of the project page was never changed to reflect it, and as a bonus, there was no consensus for this move back in early 2008. This was moved during the Arbitration Case, and I think its time, while the project is close to dead, that we move it back, because consensus and scope are the issue here. I've brought this up before, so I would like to see this actually discussed. Mitch/ HC32 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
(od) To be honest, I could care less weather the project is titled PA Roads or PA Highways. IMO, we've got much bigger fish to fry. Dave ( talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
So.... what's the point, exactly? - Algorerhythms ( talk) 22:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have put merge tags up for this article, discuss here. Mitch/ HC32 19:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Talk:U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois Dave ( talk) 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has proposed merging Interstate 24 in Tennessee and Interstate 24 in Georgia into Interstate 24 in Tennessee and Georgia. Not sure where the discussion will be held. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Could someone comment on these edits? [27] [28] Basically he is adding nonnotable junctions to the junction list because he wants to list every single control city on every single BGS on the highway. In addition to this, he believes that we need to include all roads marked in yellow on Google Maps, and every single road junction with a signed control city. Can someone tell him that that's not what we do? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) It's trivially easy to find errors in Google Maps. However, we need to keep the larger point in mind. Rschen's complaint was that intersections were being listed solely because the roads are drawn with a thick line in Google Maps. I think the point is well made now, that Google maps should NEVER be the primary source for information in the article, and that includes the Major intersections guide. What I traditionally do is have an on-line map, and paper atlas or map, if it shows up as major in both, then I'll add. Using this standard, I've removed many junctions in CA road articles because it only showed up as major in one, not both. Sadly, they have since been added right back in. Dave ( talk) 17:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Are junctions notable to be included in major intersections solely if they were a former routing of a state / US route? Case in point: major intersections table of California State Route 39. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Recently, Mitch and I have been improving articles about Interstates, U.S. highways, and state routes in New Jersey to GA status. One problem I came upon is how the U.S. Route 1/9 concurrency in northern New Jersey should be handled. Currently, we have a U.S. Route 1/9 article that dewscribes the concurrency while both the U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey and U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey articles describe those routes south of where they split. My thinking was that we have the US 1/9 article thoroughly describe the concurrency while the separate state-detail pages for US 1 and US 9 thoroughly describe the portion south of the concurrency with a brief summary of the concurrent portion. Mitch said that the information should be in the US 1 article since it takes precedence to US 9. Another idea is to turn U.S. Route 1/9 into a disambiguation page to the US 1 and US 9 articles and list the details of the concurrency separately in each article. This is similar to how the long concurrency of Maryland Route 2 and Maryland Route 4 is handled. However, this third idea would cause a lot of redundancy between the US 1 and US 9 articles. Therefore, I am opening a discussion to see what the best option is. Dough4872 ( talk) 18:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There are separate shields for US 1 and US 9 (not the hyphenated ones) along the concurrency such as in this picture. Nevertheless, the concurrency is long enough that it probably warrants its own article. In addition, the junction list for the concurrency should only appear in the US 1/9 articles while the junction list in the US 1 and US 9 articles should describe the portions south of the split. I guess the status quo is the best way to go. Dough4872 ( talk) 17:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I was talking with another member about why he was uploading new PA Quadrant Route shields to "File:Quadrant Route xxxx.svg" instead of our standard "File:PA QR xxxx.svg" but he says that he can't upload to the latter file name. I remember a while back that members got the Commons to allow our short file-named shields and I was wondering if someone here could do that again. I would but I can't seem to find where that discussion happened and if I did, it'd probably be a too complex of a procedure for a simple-minded roadgeek like me. :) — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 21:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I was going to write this earlier, but got distracted. Already, a response to part 1 has alluded to my second point. Lately, I am seeing an increasing number of Major Cities boxes that are being treated as "Control Cities" boxes. WP:USRD/STDS#Major cities states that the box should be "a list of major cities along the route". Taking the current revision of Interstate 15 as an example, the box lists Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles as major cities through other connecting highways; that box also lists Lethbridge, Alberta in Canada. All these cities are clearly not located along Interstate 15, so why are they in the Major Cities box? The situation is further illustrated by the use of notes indicating a direction (northbound, etc.). To the road enthusiast, we might understand that this indicates the control city direction; for the average user unfamiliar with the highway, they may be wondering why I-15 only serves San Diego in the southbound direction. That I-15 example has several instances (mostly within California) of control city related notes within the major cities box. The situation also exists on state-detail articles as well. When I reviewed this version of Interstate 70 in Colorado for its ACR, one of the first things I noticed was three non-Colorado cities in the Major Cities box. I suggested the removal of these cities, thinking it might cause confusion for the average reader to see Utah and Kansas cities mentioned in a major cities list for a Colorado section of Interstate. With these removed, the box makes a bit more sense on a state-detail page. From the discussion above, it would seem some editors may prefer the removal of the Major Cities box. I don't care whether it's kept or cut. If it is kept, I would like to see something that explicitly states that the route serves the communities listed. The box should not be used as a means to list control cities because these are, in my opinion, difficult to source (outside of photographs/Google Street View) and do not provide encyclopedic information about the route itself. -- LJ ( talk) 06:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(od) I'm all in favor of dumping them completely. If it is truly a major city, it will be mentioned in the text with a wikilink at some point anyway. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there nothing in the US along the lines of List of primary destinations on the United Kingdom road network? All towns/cities listed in UK roads infoboxes must be on that list (which is an official government document). As such it would solve any issues of which towns/cities to include? Or am I completely getting the wrong end of the disagreement here? Jeni ( talk) 00:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This is simply a single place to list the current opinion of participants, not anything binding. Indicate a preference to either Keep or Remove "Major Cities" boxes from USRD articles:
What is the status of this? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
If the decision is to keep the major cities/control boxes. Here are some ideas to standardize the boxes. Just ideas for discussion
Dave ( talk) 01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The straw poll showed most favored delete, with some keep and standardize. As such how about this for a compromise:
How about this? Dave ( talk) 01:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
(od)
Doing...
Done I am taking the next hour or two to compile a table of the FWHA list intersected with the 40K restricted population of the urban areas list. I'm notifying everyone to avoid any possible duplication of effort this morning. This doesn't mean I oppose addition of other criteria in the proposal, I simply think it would be good to see exactly what we are talking about with those two lists used as standards.
Sswonk (
talk)
15:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
This would replace the "Major cities" section that currently exists:
In the past editors have added a second small infobox entitled "Major cities" to articles, and used that box to list several prominent cities along the route. However, no practical standards published by secondary sources exist that are useful for determining the inclusion or exclusion of a particular city within the box. Standards can not be set, neither based on population and local prominence nor based on proximity and number of exits or intersections within the city. Through experience it has been determined that the use of such boxes is not acceptable. The coverage of major cities served by a route should exist only within the article body, exit or junction lists, and the article infobox "major junctions" locations.
Notice it doesn't say anything about state projects, this would just express the standards USRD wishes to have imposed. Sswonk ( talk) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
In the past, a second small infobox entitled "Major cities" has been used in the route description section to list prominent cities along the route. However, no secondary sources have been found that are useful for determining whether a particular city should be included or excluded within the box. Various criteria have been proposed (population, local prominence, number of junctions/interchanges, etc.); however, no consensus has emerged in favor of any particular standard. In addition to the lack of source and standards, previous experience has shown that the contents of the Major Cities box can be contentious on certain articles. Unless an acceptable source defining major cities is found, it is not appropriate to use the Major Cities box. Major cities served by a route should be covered in the route description, junction list, and/or in the article infobox.
I have revised my suggested text, now shown below, to reflect a few of the revisions offered by LJ. Going through the discussions above yet another time I think consensus is very strong that the use of the "Major cities" boxes is not supported. I think also that the lead paragraph of WP:USRD/STDS is weak enough already, mentioning WP:IAR in the second sentence. There is no need to show again that things can change with consensus because the entire page leads off with that statement. Rather, the deprecation of "Major cities" boxes should be made clear and unequivocal with reasons. No instructions for removal are needed, the statement itself gives the reasons. The overwhelming opinion given here is that the information is best handled within the article and is self-evident by the exit and junction lists, and that coming up with standards to go back to using a revised second infobox called "Major cities" is to be as discouraged as the boxes themselves. The wording of the statement can make that quite clear.
In the past a second small infobox entitled "Major cities" was sometimes added to articles to list several prominent cities as part of the route description. However, no practical standards published by secondary sources have been found that are useful for determining the inclusion or exclusion of a particular city within the box. Because of the lack of such sources, standards can not be set. Basing standards on such criteria as population, local prominence, number of junctions/interchanges etc. becomes subjective and a source of contention. The use of "Major cities" boxes is therefor deprecated and they should not be used in articles. The coverage of major cities served by a route should exist only within the article body, exit or junction lists, and the article infobox "major junctions" locations.
– Sswonk ( talk) 03:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
In the past, a second infobox entitled "Major cities" was sometimes added to articles to list several prominent cities as part of the route description. However, no published secondary sources have been found that are useful for determining the inclusion or exclusion of a particular city within the box. Due to the lack of such sources, practical standards can not be set. Basing guidelines on criteria such as population, local prominence, or number of junctions/interchanges becomes a subjective exercise and a source of contention. Therefore, the use of "Major cities" boxes has been deprecated by consensus, and similar lists should not be used in articles. Major cities should not appear outside of the article prose, except in conjunction with a major intersection or terminus entry in the article's infobox or junction table.
Interstate Route |
State | Major Cities Served (Pop. larger than 5,000) ( |
---|---|---|
I-4 | Florida | Tampa, Lakeland, Orlando, Daytona Beach |
I-5 | California | San Diego, Los Angeles, Stockton, Sacramento, |
Oregon | ||
Washington | ||
TOTAL | ||
I-8 | California | San Diego, El Centro |
Arizona | Yuma, | |
TOTAL | ||
I-10 | California | |
Arizona | Phoenix, | |
New Mexico | ||
Texas | El Paso, | |
Louisiana | Lake Charles, LaFayette, Baton Rouge, | |
Mississippi | Gulfport, Biloxi, Pascagoula | |
Alabama | Mobile | |
Florida | Pensacola, Tallahassee, Jacksonville | |
TOTAL | ||
I-12 | Louisiana | Baton Rouge, Slidell |
1-15 | California | San Diego, |
Nevada | Las Vegas | |
Arizona | None | |
Utah | Saint George, | |
Idaho | Pocatello, | |
Montana | ||
TOTAL | ||
I-16 | Georgia | Macon, Savannah |
I-17 | Arizona | Phoenix, Flagstaff |
I-19 | Arizona | |
I-20 | Texas | |
Louisiana | Shreveport, | |
Mississippi | ||
Alabama | Tuscaloosa, | |
Georgia | Atlanta, | |
S. Carolina | ||
TOTAL | ||
I-24 | Illinois | |
Kentucky | Paducah, | |
Tennessee | Clarksville, Nashville, Murfreesboro, | |
Georgia | None | |
TOTAL | ||
I-25 | New Mexico | Las Cruces, |
Colorado | ||
Wyoming | Cheyenne, Casper, | |
TOTAL | ||
I-99* | Pennsylvania |
I stopped at I-26, having concluded this method is too restrictive. I started to worry at I-5 and then I-10 but removing Butte and Helena from I-15 seemed to tip the scales too far. I have the complete FWHA list in table form without strikes in storage if needed. Sswonk ( talk) 16:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
There are certainly some false positives in here, but User:NE2/major cities should have almost all that need to be fixed. -- NE2 05:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) Thanks for making this list, It's making the cleanup easier. Dave ( talk) 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Q: What about articles such as Lincoln Highway. I was about to delete the major cities box for this article, but decided to ask first. In this case the box is equally clogging the article space. However, for auto trails, named scenic byways that span multiple numeric designations, etc. these are not as easily verifiable with, say Google Maps. As such maybe the major cities list adds more value here, than on, say I-95? I still am leaning towards delete, but would like a 2nd opinion. Dave ( talk) 02:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)