![]() | 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
This is just a FYI - User:71.8.199.1 has been adding random references to Interstate 70 in Nevada to articles and performing other vandalism. Below is a copy of a post received on my talk page, with links: -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You blocked this user on the 17th for its disruptive editing to highway articles. Just to let you know, whilst it was blocked here, the IP has moved over to Commons and carried on doing similar edits to images. ( Thread on Commons AN). I've also quickly checked and the account is making similar edits on the French and German wikis, and probably others.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 11:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I am running into a situation here. I wanna expand routes like the above mentioned, Pennsylvania Route 415, but this route for example has a strange dilemma. Originally, when Route 415 was assigned in 1928, the route went to the western side of Harveys Lake in Luzerne County. The route to the eastern side was Route 515. In 1946, Route 515 was decommissioned in favor of two Route 415s! That is the dilemma. How do we cover a route which is signed heading bi-directionally on two sides of the lake. It is not a one-way couplet, but a bi-directional Route 415 on the western side of the lake and another bi-directional Route 415 on the eastern side of the lake (known as SR 1415 internally). How do we cover this is what I have come to ask. I am pretty sure there's more routes that do this, and wanna make sure we have some kind of standards. It would not make sense to cover the RD to cover one side specifically, as signage makes 415 mainline in 2 directions. In this case, would a separate article on State Route 1415 (Luzerne County, Pennsylvania) (or Pennsylvania Route 515) be worth for the eastern side, or is there a good way to cover both routes in the article?Mitch32( Want help? See here!) 01:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No need to say anything - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connecticut Route 140.Mitch32( Want help? See here!) 22:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Apparently there is a new part of WP:MOS that we have to follow - WP:ALT, which was brought up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 70 in Colorado/archive1. It seems that there are 4 steps to bringing USRD articles into full compliance:
Any comments? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems that right now (except for concerns on 3) the only thing we cannot currently provide WP:ALT compliance for is #4. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
marker_image=FOO
shouldn't be a problem, as FOO
uses full image syntax, and that can include alt text. If FOO
contains multiple images, each can contain its own alt text. If I'm wrong, could you please give a counterexample?
Eubulides (
talk)
09:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this is quite refreshing. I log on to wikipedia today, and find out that while I was out, you all took care of this. Thanks TMF, Rschen, LJ, NE2, Eubulides and whomever else I missed. I may need one of you to give me a digest, as I'm not sure I got all of this. Dave ( talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The numbered items refer to the list above
Dave ( talk) 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I experimented with ALT on New Jersey Route 208. Can somebody look over it to make sure I am doing it right? Dough4872 ( talk) 17:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:County Route 626 (Cape May County, New Jersey). Basically, the deal is whether or not to merge New Jersey Route 162 and County Route 626 (Cape May County, New Jersey). Dough4872 ( talk) 15:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Another merge along this line concerns New Jersey Route 13. This route is the internal designation for the state-maintained Lovelandtown Bridge which connects to County Route 632 (Ocean County, New Jersey) on both ends. How should these three redundant articles possibly be combined into one? Dough4872 ( talk) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
-- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I am speaking as an administrator here giving rationale for my actions. This seems like the place where people would read it who care.
The 75.47 IP removing major cities boxes is User:I-10, who was indefinitely banned within the last year. Wikipedia policy is to revert all banned users' edits. While yes, it is a pain to have to go back and redo those edits, especially when they do follow our new guideline regarding major cities boxes, we need to protect the encyclopedia by discouraging this banned user (who has caused us much hardship) from ever editing Wikipedia again. Therefore, we need to apply WP:RBI across the board, and this means reverting / rollbacking all his edits. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I'm trying to block User:75.47.128.0/19 instead now as that's a smaller rangeblock (only blocking the correct half, I hope). If this backfires then I'll block the original range again. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this is speculation or if this is reliable or what. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Recently a user moved St. Paul Street-Calvert Street to Maryland Route 2 in Baltimore. What they basically did was rename a fine article title to something nonstandard and copied information from the MD 2 article, which itself is well-written. What should be done here? I would think reverting the move. Dough4872 ( talk) 02:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_31#Category:State_highways_inspired_by_US_highways Dave ( talk) 05:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
In the GA review for New Jersey Route 64, there is currently a huge issue over whether the route is north-south or east-west. It is orientated in a east-west direction and considered that in the legislation for its predecessor 31A, but is marked north-south on the straight line diagram. I wanted greater opinion on what direction the route should be considered. (It is not signed in the field.) Dough4872 ( talk) 00:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
An IP editor has made a number of changes to roads articles, which given his/her record are probably not good edits please see here I don't know enough about roads in the US to be sure, could somebody who has better knowledge have a look. -- Drappel ( talk) 19:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi project, I want to inform you, that I found this template and it is not used. So Template:Infobox Interstate/Business has been nominated for deletion. Your members are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Greetings. Sebastian scha. ( talk) 18:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Where's the western end of U.S. Route 14? The article lede says it ends at the east entrance of Yellowstone National Park, but the "Wyoming" section of the route description and Google Maps both have it ending at West Thumb, well inside the park. -- Carnildo ( talk) 00:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Nomination restrictions which may interest you guys, as you nominate GA's fairly regularly. Jeni ( talk) 16:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
[3] [4] It's obvious this guy doesn't care about WP:USSH. Could an administrator take care of any blocks if necessary? (I'm stepping out for a few days). -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I could use some help cleaning up U.S. Route 23 in Michigan. I've added a section describing the route, as well as some sources, but I don't know where to find more sources, or what else the article needs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Some concerns have arisen regarding the inclusion of major intersections tables on every USRD article. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
We have an old Project News sidebar (located at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/news) that is no longer updated, having been replaced by the {{ USRD Announcements}} template. The outdated newsbar is still linked in the USRD project navigation bar found on most USRD pages. It appears that the only pages linking to the old news bar are those using the USRD nav bar. Since we're dealing with an outdated/deprecated page, would there be any objection to removing the Project News link from the nav bar (or replacing with a link to the announcements template) and deleting the old news page? -- LJ ( talk) 22:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the three sidebars for TfD. -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC) I have also nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/news for MfD. -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida State Road 600A (2nd nomination) -- NE2 05:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Route 64 -- NE2 19:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I hope the tide for auto-notability of primary numbered roads doesn't change. Can you imagine the chaos that would result? We'd have to basically redo half of all we've ever done and we'd be spending most of our time debating whether a route is notable enough or not. If that tide changes, I quit. -- Triadian ( talk) 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Talk:U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey#Merging Trenton Freeway. Dough4872 ( talk) 22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Roadology, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadology. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Triadian ( talk) 05:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Avenue of the Saints -- Fredddie ™ 01:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of merges, I noticed New Jersey Route 180 is back. -- NE2 01:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
(section renamed by doncram from "another merger candidate" for more specific reference later)
Puerto Rico Highway 14 and Carretera Central (Puerto Rico). The Carretera Central is a historic road that runs along PR-14 from Ponce to Cayey and then follows PR-1 from Cayey to San Juan. I think it makes more sense to discuss PR-14 in the context of the historic road. Currently, User:Doncram is opposed to merging. I would like to solicit opinions as to whether this is a good idea. Thanks. -- Polaron | Talk 16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This may be a case where there is enough history for two separate articles. Compare Albany Post Road/ Old Albany Post Road (which probably should be merged together) and U.S. Route 9 in New York, or Lancaster Turnpike (why does this have a junction list?) and U.S. Route 30 in Pennsylvania. (For the record, U.S. Route 66 in Kansas has been merged into its modern designation, but that's a very short segment.) -- NE2 19:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Interstate 5 in California - the article to be merged in is Santa Ana Freeway. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 12#Former and future Interstate Highway categories – T M F 01:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/66.66.117.141
This user has been on an editing spree, mostly playing with the termini and junction lists. These edits looked somewhat questionable. I'm not 100% familiar with the guidelines for those anymore, but I noticed this user has a pattern of violating those guidelines, so I'm posting here. -- Sable232 ( talk) 02:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I gave him a final warning. If he continues I'll just give short term blocks. The guy does not respond at all to messages on his talk page. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This is just a call for help - please check your Commons watchlist more frequently (especially those who upload a lot of USRD stuff there). Unfortunately, we have had several users going through and making a mess of our organization system there, and very few users are watching it. Thanks! -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
If anyone is bored, here's a debate regarding the western terminus of BC 7 - from the looks of it I think this would be an easy thing for an experienced USRD user to do. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 19:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed that the abbreviations used for New Jersey State Routes in Template:Infobox road/NJ/abbrev NJ is in violation of WP:USSH, as it uses "NJ X" rather than "Route X" that is called for. Other states that use "Route X", such as MA, are abbreviated as such in the template. A previous discussion from 2006 called for the "Route X" abbreviation to be changed to "NJ X", but this is a violation of USSH. Should this be changed back in order to comply with USSH? Dough4872 ( talk) 21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
My take is that abbreviations in prose should definitely be allowed under USSH as long as they serve as a shortening of the common name specified by USSH. This has been the de facto practice, at least in New York and Vermont, for years, even before SRNC. – T M F 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The strange thing is that NJDOT almost never uses New Jersey Route x, but they do use NJ x as an abbreviation: [8] [9] -- NE2 13:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
After seeing a comment from another editor on WT:USSH, I think this abbreviation issue needs to be dealt with. I've put together a preliminary list of "official" short-form abbreviations (which I'm sure isn't perfect), so please comment further at WT:USSH#Abbreviations_of_names. My goal is to add this to the table on WP:USSH once it's been finalized, creating an official centralized list of abbreviations that editors can reference. -- LJ ( talk) 06:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 29 re {{ I-45 aux}} -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Some of our project pages are a bit outdated (relating to the 2006-2008 era when we were going in between arbitration cases) and I'm updating them where there is nothing controversial about the rewordings. However there are two things that are controversial and that there is no easy way to reword. I'll bring up the first one: sections 6.5 and 9.1 (both relating to project subordination). Surely there must be some more elegant and less inflammatory way to say something similar? I remember that I added those sections in a hurry during some random debate a few years ago, and now it just seems awkward. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) There's also a scope issue by making them task forces. Moving a project to a subpage of USRD essentially turns it into a generic road project whether or not it was a state highway-only project or not by way of the simple name ("Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/West Virginia" and such). – T M F 04:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily a great topic to bring up, but the {{ disputed}} tags have been on WP:USRD and WP:CASH for a year, and it's not exactly attractive to new users. Any thoughts? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Moving the inactive projects to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/<whatever the project was named, minus WikiProject>? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Scary thought, isn't it? This would be a golden opportunity to do some strategic planning.
First we should define a vision, which is currently covered badly by the project's scope. The vision needs to be clear, unambiguous, and realistic. Example:
This WikiProject aims to create the most accurate and most searched resource on the Internet about roads in the United States.
Next, a mission, which should provide direction. Example:
We at this WikiProject are committed to working together to create quality content, set reasonable standards, set aside personal differences, and appropriately resolve conflicts for the benefit of all readers of Wikipedia. Should some editors not be able to follow these procedures, they should step aside for a while and allow other editors to continue editing. No one editor controls this WikiProject, but a veteran editor's opinions should be respected.
Then, a list of goals which we all would share. Examples:
- Allow other WikiProjects which may cover a topic or article better to do so
- Consolidate all articles and sub-projects under WP:USRD
- Create task forces for each state, organizing them under both WP:USRD and that state's WikiProject
- Identify other areas of the project which require task forces
- Create standards for the project
- Uphold those standards
Obviously, this is a radical solution. And obviously, this is how I would organize USRD if this were Fredddiepedia.
In reality, though, WP:USRD is a mess and could use some form of reorganization. -- Fredddie ™ 19:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It's been a few weeks... what are people's thoughts? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
(od) I don't remember what my take at the time was, but my take now is that since the title of this project is U.S. Roads, all articles on roads in the U.S. should be within the scope of this project. The scope given above corresponds more to a project titled "U.S. Numbered Highways" or some sort (putting aside the fact that United States Numbered Highways is the official name of the U.S. Highway System). For me, the more contentious issue is the tagging of articles outside a subproject's scope as being part of that subproject. Just because an article falls within the scope of USRD and is located in a particular state does not necessarily mean that it automatically falls within the scope of a subproject in that state. However, that's a topic for another discussion since this one is geared toward this project's scope. – T M F 20:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Another idea that has come to my head is to possibly launch task forces for states that do not yet have a project. These pages can list article standards particularly associated with that state. Dough4872 ( talk) 22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
So... should we start a straw poll to see if this works? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 19:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
We are trying to redefine the project's scope. Should we...
Regardless of the result above, it's likely that WikiProject U.S. Streets will be greatly affected. That project's scope is loosely defined as roads and streets not covered by USRD. Would USST be better served...
Nobody has voted in over a week. Is it safe to close the straw poll and start hashing out the verbiage of the scope?? --
Fredddie
™
03:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
How should we go about deciding what goes into the scope? Should those who want to write something out do so and have the rest of us vote on it? -- Fredddie ™ 20:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, first of all let's get this settled, as it's really the core of the scope issues: What goes into USRD and what into USST? In founding USST, my original idea was for all city streets related article to fall under USST and only USST, while USRD handled the numbered routes. The idea here is that USRD handles the broad, state-level view of the route, while USST hones the local importance and history to that city. It is clear to me (though it may not really be to others) that these are two different styles of writing, requiring two different kinds of expertise in the members of that project. Compare Kansas Turnpike or any of our FAs to Rush Street and note the differences in the types of things we focus on; while "History" in the USRD sense covers things like construction history, challenges to construction, and realignment history, the history of a street will consist of more human factors like how that street is placed in the community, significant community events that's happened on that street, etc. In some cases a street will become iconic for a community, industry or even the culture prevalent in its environment (probably the best example of this is Castro Street in San Francisco, or Wall Street). Obviously these sorts of things are not likely to be covered well by a USRD editor, who is more attuned to tracing a numbered route and its changes throughout the years and doesn't generally focus on the social implications of a route beyond that which may have challenged its construction.
To this end the two separate projects were established. However for some reason we ended up with many articles tagged with both! This is doubleplusungood. Perhaps even tripleplusungood. Just because a city street happened to carry a numerical designation at some point does not mean that it should be included in USRD. The reason here is that in the majority of cases there will be two articles: one focusing on the numerical route (which we will call Hwy 41 for the sake of example) and one focusing on the section of city street (we'll call it, oh, Wigley Street). The Hwy 41 article's makeup should be familiar in all of our heads because we've written it countless times. You've written the history of Hwy 41 before, built its junction list, described its route. Wigley Street's article will be completely different. In it, the designation as Hwy 41 will be of little importance and as such only noted in passing. Its history section will start by discussing who Mr. Wigley was and why the street was named after him, launching into early development along the street, and the type of demographics which eventually evolved along the street and surrounding neighborhoods. You know what I mean, whether it has a certain ethnicity attached to it, if it is a poor, middle-class, or rich neighborhood, types of zoning (industrial, retail, residential, etc.), and perhaps prominent local businesses along its route. The types of details included within this city street article are too fine to include in a numbered route article, and the types of details included in a numbered route article are too broad to include in a city street article. They are entirely separate. I encourage those of you who may doubt this to take the article on Rush Street or Castro Street, and to try going about writing another article about it in the same way you would a USRD article, using the USRD standards and format. Notice the difficulties in doing so. Notice what you have to leave out.
The only situation in which a city street should carry both tags is when the numbered route is wholly the city street. (That is, a completely urban route assigned to just one stretch of street). In such cases, the articles would be merged, and the numbered route would probably end up subservient to the city street purposes. In conclusion, articles on city streets and numbered highways are two completely different animals and writing them two different tasks. It takes a different kind of editor to write each one well. That is why I feel they should be completely separated from one another in terms of projects and why city street articles should not fall under USRD. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
So anyway... a written scope? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Nearly two months ago, we had a poll at WT:ELG to see if junction list and exit lists should follow the same standard and if colors should be allowed in exit lists. No one has voted for about a month and a half and at this point the majority of the votes lean toward one standard for junction and exit lists without color. At this point, I am considering closing the poll and modifying the ELG to call for two things: One, a sentence in the lead saying junction lists for surface roads fall under the same standard, and two, a note somewhere indicating that colors are prohibited with the exception of the light gray for proposed or former interchanges. I want some feedback on how I can make these changes in an efficient way. Dough4872 ( talk) 17:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) My criteria for inclusion has been if MDOT has numbered the crossing roadway on the state map. That means all state highways and the County-Designated Highways are included, but not other county roads. Since not all counties participate in the CDH system though, I've added other major county roads, where appropriate, to balance out. As an example, on the M-35 article, Menominee County does use CDHs, but Marquette doesn't. Marquette County numbers major county roads, and only letters the rest. The only other time I've included county roads not on the CDH system is when they are mentioned in the route description or memorial highway section as a terminus for a memorial highway name. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 03:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
How would the new ELG guidelines work for Washington state? The last major renumbering (addition and deletion of SRs) was in 1991 and WSDOT marks all former routes and alignments in their Highway Logs. – CG 15:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Have we agreed on a standard of what junctions should be listed (besides county routes, which will vary by state)? Dough4872 ( talk) 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
So... it seems that we've decided on a state-by-state basis? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
How is this for a tentative proposed rewording for the ELG for a section concerning junction lists:
In addition to covering exit lists, it has been decided that junction lists for surface roads, as well as "hybrid" lists for roads that are both surface and freeway, should fall under the same standards as exit lists. In deciding what junctions should be included, the decision should be left to the individual WikiProject overseeing roads for that region.
Obviously, for USRD, this would be Interstates, U.S., state highways, select county routes, and any other road notable for an article as determined above. Other WikiProjects would decide their own standards for what routes should be included. Dough4872 ( talk) 18:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
(od) I'm not sure what you mean. What each state decides to include is up to the relevant subproject...unless you mean deciding what junctions every state should have at minimum. – T M F 01:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume that the "former junctions" in "Colors are not to be used in either junction or exit lists with the exception of the gray shading for unbuilt or former junctions" refer to closed junctions since the gray former route shading has been deprecated and phased out for months. – T M F 20:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In addition, it should also be noted that the major intersections section for roads with freeway and non-freeway sections should be combined into one table, as in New Jersey Route 29. Dough4872 ( talk) 20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Both WP:CASH and WP:NYSR have been updated with this sort of information. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Highways along the BosWash corridor -- NE2 09:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island is currently being discussed at articles for deletion. Your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
[10] Could someone comment on this? Basically, I went through my Thomas Guide collection, which is very generous on what is major, and removed all the streets that were not marked as major in it. Also, according to [11] [12] it is Goldenwest Street, not Golden West Street as AL2TB claims the sign says. A sign is not a RS, but several maps (including Thomas Guide, Yahoo Maps, and Google Maps) are. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
More sources for refutation of possible future arguments: City of Westminster official and City of Huntington Beach official maps. Sswonk ( talk) 18:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
[13] -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 1 re {{ junction}} -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I can speak from experience that adding, for instance, BC shields, will get them removed within minutes for TMF's reason. -- Fredddie ™ 18:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Massachusetts Department of Transportation#Merge discussion. Sswonk ( talk) 05:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this, I believe it is vandalism but would like someone else to confirm and revert if necessary. Sswonk ( talk) 04:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If anyone has the time, the above FLC needs reviewers. Yes, that is a Canadian road FLC and this is the US roads project, but any expertise you all can offer is appreciated. Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Signups are beginning! There have been a few changes to simplify the contest to judge. The contest will start Jan 1. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 12:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate more input at Talk:Bannered routes of Virginia State Route 234. -- NE2 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 11 Dave ( talk) 07:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm tired of having to deal with stuff like this: [14]. Control cities for intersecting roads that are not freeways add very little to the article, and encourage editors to add nonnotable junctions to trash perfectly good junction lists. I am proposing adding a section to WP:ELG prohibiting the addition of control cities to junction lists if the intersecting road in question is not a freeway. An alternate plan is to remove them from all junction lists across USRD. Comments? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
If there's a control city (at least a major city), it's a major intersection, is it not? -- NE2 07:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's my take on the issue. The control cities need to stay in exit lists for freeways as the ELG calls for the entries of exit lists to appear as it would on the road signs. However, for junctions along a surface road, the issue is more contentious. For many surface roads, I tried to include any destinations that can be seen on signs at the junctions. In order to determine what cities to include, I usually look at Google Street View or photos taken by roadfans. However, it appears the practice of including control cities on surface roads vary by state. For example, most Maryland articles show the control cities for every junction, while many from New Jersey and Pennsylvania do not. I do not see any issue for listing control cities along surface roads. It appears the larger issue at hand is the listing of minor junctions. The recent changes made to the ELG call for each state to determine what junction is major for a junction list; however, only a few states have decided upon this. We need to make sure every state has a standard for what junctions should be in a junction list. --- Dough 48 72 23:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
(od) Personally, I have a sliding scale of notability. If a route is 5 miles long and only intersects numbered highways at its termini, I might be inclined to include less notable roads. If a road has more than about 3 intersections with numbered highways, I will rarely include non-numbered roads. If I do include them, they are notable for scenic or historical reasons. The problem is how do you codify that into an enforceable standard? I would hope we can agree that a for a route over a hundred miles long that crosses most of a large state, only in rare cases should a non-numbered road be listed in the junctions list. Dave ( talk) 07:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the step of opening Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gill Giller Gillerger 2. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 09:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
As some of you know, I created the article U.S. Route 19 Alternate (St. Petersburg, Florida). But because of the fact that it goes through major cities such as Largo, Clearwater, and Dunedin, I'm thinking of renaming the article U.S. Route 19 Alternate (Pinellas County, Florida). Does anybody think that'd be a good idea? Keep in mind, it also goes into a sliver of Pasco County( Holiday), but not enough of one to include that in the name. ---- DanTD ( talk) 14:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
In this scenario, I think it may be best to use the termini to identify the route. "St. Petersburg" would imply that it is the only city the alternate route runs through, which is not true, and county disambiguation would not work since it exists in more than one county. --- Dough 48 72 22:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Notice how the Santa Ana Freeway portion of the Interstate 5 in California exit list is on the Santa Ana Freeway article. Is this something we want to do? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
{| <!-- Template:Collapse top --> class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #CFC;" | Hidden for ease of scrolling
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |
{{:Santa Ana Freeway}}{{Reflist}}
|}
or use onlyinclude tags around the list at the freeway article (done).
Sswonk (
talk) 00:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Edited to prevent incorrect categorization of this page.
DexDor
(talk)
16:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
If only one list is left after this discussion, this is the way to do it:
{{anchor|Santa Ana Freeway exits}}
at I-5 CA where Santa Ana Freeway begins and the link
[[Interstate 5 in California#Santa Ana Freeway exits|Interstate 5 in California exit list]]
in the Santa Ana Freeway list in the colspan.I think that is preferable to either maintaining two separate lists with duplicated content or splitting the list between articles with the overlap appearing only in Santa Ana Freeway. I-5 CA should have the complete list. An HTML comment could be placed in the list at Santa Ana Freeway saying in so many words "don't change this it's a consensus decision". Sswonk ( talk) 04:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The detailed exit list should go where the other details of that segment are: the Santa Ana Freeway article. It's more likely that a reader will want to check the exits on the Santa Ana Freeway while reading about the Santa Ana Freeway. For instance, if you read how it was opened from Fire Canyon Road to Wet Stream Avenue in 1932, you might then want to see where those are in relation to other interchanges. -- NE2 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that maybe we should get a wider range of input on this; right now it seems we're at a stalemate. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe this discussion is still active, I am adding a comment at the bottom to hold for ten more days against bot archiving. Sswonk ( talk) 01:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Single list. No, it's not unanimous, but it's a clear majority. We have to choose one option, and this is the one most people support. Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The choices are above. Time to get this dealt with. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Template talk:Jct#Enabling "banners" for NY. The section has been there since August and I can't fix it since the documentation for the inner workings of the template is shoddy at best. – T M F 23:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Examples:
NY 9D /
NY 52 Bus.
US 20 /
NY 9D /
NY 52 Bus.
Looks like everything's resolved now, with thanks to Fredddie ( talk · contribs). – T M F 00:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geronimo Trail -- Fredddie ™ 06:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 4#Template:I-83 aux --- Dough 48 72 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright there are several Wikipedia Books that are related to US roads, so if you could update the US road banner to handle the book-class, that would be of tremendous help since the members of WikiProject Comics have a lot more clue when US roads are concerned than we have over at WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, and thus will be able to give better feedback on content, deletion discussions, etc...
Since most of you don't know what Wikipedia-Books are, here's a crash course. Basically they are collections of articles which you can download or order in print. I would really recommend to go through Help:Books and Help:Books/for experts to see what this is all about.
For example of a US Roads-related books, see WP:Books/New York State Route 20N and WP:Books/State touring routes in Warren County, New York (you can view the PDFs here and here). Needless to say a lot more books could be made, so if you want to give it a try, you have lots of room. It really doesn't take long to create books (at least compared to writing new articles) since all you have to do is find existing articles and arrange them into something that makes sense. And if you create a book, don't forget to place {{ Wikipedia-Books}} on pages that should link to the books, otherwise no one will know these exist.
If you have questions, just ask and I'll answer as best I can. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Washington State Route 20. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 09:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Interstate 82 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. 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) 09:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I came across this today regarding UK exit lists. If anyone's interested... -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Washington State Route 20. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 09:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Washington State Route 410. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Washington State Route 410. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Devils Tower National Monument. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Washington State Route 529. Not really sure if this is where it should be merged to though. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 11:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 12#Various auxiliary Interstate templates. --- Dough 48 72 16:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Iowa Highway 370. -- Fredddie ™ 00:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 287#Merging Cross-Westchester Expressway. --- Dough 48 72 04:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
This was originally envisioned as a separate project and it was only absorbed later into I-287 so in the long run I think this will be split off. However, because of the almost stubby state of the main text of the article, I agree that merging is the way to go until someone can make a full-fledged article in the future. -- Polaron | Talk 23:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:New Jersey Route 33. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Please visit the above page and review the article; this has been open for almost 6 months. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The scope has been tagged as {{ disputed}} for almost 2 years. I put a scope that closely resembles the status quo. If you have any problems, please discuss here (do not edit war), so we can at least get a discussion started. I decided I would take the initiative to get this resolved. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This WikiProject maintains articles relating to roadways of national or regional significance in the United States. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following:
Articles not maintained by this project, with some exception, include:
I was randomly looking through some of the USRD assessment categories just now. I found out that for Wisconsin, we have tagged 1066 redirect-class articles. That's right 1,066 redirect-class articles in Wisconsin!?! It seems that someone went through and created a talk page for every redirect that exists for all the Wisconsin articles. I thought we only used this class tag on the main article's talk page if the article page is converted to a redirect as a result of a merge (especially if the old talk page has discussion on it). I imagine we could get rid of most, if not all, of these useless talk pages. -- LJ ( talk) 05:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There's quite a few of these useless talk pages:
So how do we begin to go about eliminating these under CSD-G6 criterion? -- LJ ( talk) 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the edits made by 71.48.97.82 ( talk · contribs) to Interstate 287? Basically, this user is removing informationn without an explanation. I have tried to revert their edits, but they keep getting changed back. --- Dough 48 72 18:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
On the same vein as this is 98.81.2.95 ( talk · contribs). Who knows, it might be the same guy. Unlike the one above, though, this guy is changing wording on multiple articles. Also, some of the edits (like [16]) are of pretty poor quality. (To me anyway, I don't see how "about" means the same thing as "circa".) – T M F 02:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
And another: 204.255.30.12 ( talk · contribs) – T M F 13:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem here. A roadgeek who is also a Wikipedia editor removed this section citing policy in WP:DIRECTORY. I don't want to mention who for reasons, but he then got reverted as vandalism. I reverted that reversion, which removed the list, and I've been reverted, citing WP:DIRECTORY allowing for lists of people. Outside of the fact Roadgeek has been up for AFD 5 times, and it probably doesn't need to stay. I would solve this myself, but I have a massive conflict of interest as I know most of the people in real life, and can't really get involved. If people want to leave input on the situation, it would be helpful.Mitch32( A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 20:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Roadgeek#Notable roadgeeks. -- NE2 11:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's a dynamic list of recent changes related to Stub-Class USRD articles. Might be worth watching for bad edits that would usually go under the radar. (I can do one of these for the other classes too.) – Juliancolton | Talk 12:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
{{ Welcomeroad}} has been updated! It is now based upon {{ W-basic}}, a standard welcome template. {{ Welcomeroadip}} now redirects to Welcomeroad because W-basic had some boilerplate text for IP editors that I utilized. -- Fredddie ™ 00:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 19#Interstate navboxes with three links. --- Dough 48 72 04:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Most of the articles about Virginia state routes serving institutions are stubs and will never be anything else; their sole purpose is to provide access to the institution. I'm wondering if these stubs should be combined into a larger article (this is already done with "bannered routes"). Most of these routes are in the 300-399 range. See the List of primary state highways in Virginia for a thorough listing. -- Tim Sabin ( talk) 00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion at WP:USRD/NT -- Fredddie ™ 23:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
There are 3140 counties in the United States. Do we want 3140 lists of highways in each county? (I suppose there are independent cities and Alaska divisions too.) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It really depends on the naming of the article. For my Ontario articles, I'm naming them 'list of numbered roads in Foo', which means the article isn't intended only for the county road system, but rather a broader coverage of all numbered routes. Of course, the US system is far more complex. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
So... what does this mean for the routes lists that exist? --
Rschen7754 (
T
C)
02:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Elliptical highway shield (what the...)
[17] is a bit strange - is this someone we know? -- NE2 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
TFD of {{ Control cities}}. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 18. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Arizona State Route 202. -- Fredddie ™ 01:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 20 - for {{ State Roads in Indiana}} -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This was added to WP:USRD/STDS a couple of years back. My question is is it really feasible on longer toll roads, such as the New York State Thruway, which has over two dozen service areas? As of the time of posting the section looks like this: an ugly bulleted list that violates the MOS in three different spots. Thoughts? – T M F 19:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
This term is used in a number of articles about roads. Could someone perhaps make an article on exactly what that means and why it's important to know? 98.249.238.176 ( talk) 05:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Should this exist (the article, not the route :))? -- NE2 11:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This has been merged with Massachusetts Route 28 but another user is against merging. Comments regarding the appropriateness of the merge are welcome. See Talk:Massachusetts Route 28A for discussion. -- Polaron | Talk 05:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Arkansas Highway 72 Spur - not sure where it should be merged to. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 19:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The USRDCup contest begins January 1! Currently only 5 editors are signed up. This contest will encourage editors to improve USRD articles. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Pennsylvania Turnpike#Merging Interstate 276. --- Dough 48 72 16:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I've recently been thinking about articles on named interchanges ( SuperRedTan Interchange, Fort Smith Junction, Grandview Triangle as examples). A lot of our coverage on them is rather poor. I have a few questions that I think we as a project need to answer:
Please share your thoughts on this, guys. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
1) I believe we should have articles on them if they're notable; more specifically, if a decently-sized, fully referenced article not full of fluff can be written about the interchange, I don't see why we shouldn't have an article on it. As for eliminating the ones that don't meet this...either AFD them or merge them to the primary highway through the interchange. 2) Location, roads served, layout (including the type of interchange if applicable), and history (construction of the interchange itself, not of the highways leading into them) are musts. Perhaps use "Description" for these articles instead of "Route description"? Also, I would ax the junction list since there's no need for anything remotely close to that. 3) For me, a B-Class (complete) interchange article would be one with a completed infobox (Infobox road junction was made a while ago), a complete and referenced description, and a complete and referenced history. – T M F 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this really something we want to do? -- Rs chen 7754 02:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like only one editor is actively using that page. Also note the kinds of article that are requested there—there are state-detail routes, bannered routes and lists of county routes... just the kinds of articles we do not want created! — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Our project's guidelines for notability ( WP:USRD/NT) advise that usually a highway should have notable spans in at least 3 jurisdictions before being broken out into state detail articles. I would like to put this to the test; Should Interstate 8 be subject to, or excepted from, this guideline? (I've known about this for a while, but the above item with I-208 reminded me.)
I don't know the answer, I'm asking an honest question. I-8 only spans 2 states ( Arizona and California) and even if re-merged the exit list would not be as long as the exit list on some single state higways.
However I-8 also has the following mitigating factors:
So, what say ye? Again, I'm asking an honest question to test if our guidelines are appropriately written, knowing I-8 is a tough case. Dave ( talk) 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Worse comes to worst we could always axe the concept of state-detail articles and do away with exit lists (I'm sure gribblenation or aaroads or something would take them). — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think state-detail articles are a great idea as they break up what would otherwise be a very long article and can focus only on the history of the route within the given state. The history of a route between states is often unrelated as the roads are maintained by individual states and sometimes treated with the same equivalencies as state highways. In my opinion, state-detail articles should exist where there is enough material to write about that route in a particular state and it would otherwise make the main article too long. In the case of I-8, I believe the two state-detail pages are justified as there is a lot to say about both the CA and AZ segments of the road. --- Dough 48 72 04:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem likely that the current task forces (Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, South Carolina) will be repromoted anytime soon. Is there any opposition to changing the TF page to reflect this? In other words, removing stuff that's duplicated at WP:USRD/STDS, etc. -- Rs chen 7754 05:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I changed the WP:NVSH page. Does it look good? -- Rs chen 7754 19:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this something we want to do? -- Rs chen 7754 06:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
JCbot ( talk · contribs) completed its task of preforming general MOS/capitalization/style changes to highway articles; according to AWB, it made about 3,157 edits. Sorry for the watchlist/recent changes flood. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ Road list}} v. Table v. Bulleted list at Talk:List of state routes in Arizona -- Fredddie ™ 22:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 30 - {{ featuredNVSR}} -- Rs chen 7754 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Jack Schrade Interchange, Glendora Curve -- Rs chen 7754 03:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey. I have a bot, User:JCbot, pending BAG approval for its fourth task. The bot will preform general fixes on USRD-related articles, including:
Please list any further ideas for fixes the bot can easily preform.
– Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I happened to check my watchlist today (as I still do from time to time) and noticed your bot changed East-West Highway to east-west Highway in U.S. Route 1 in Maryland. Obviously that should be capitalized since it's the name of the highway. I already reverted it, but just giving the heads up. -Jeff (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
We need two more facts for the portal. Currently there are only three, with two being reused from December. Your help would be appreciated. -- Rs chen 7754 21:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 1#Template:CASH-SA. --- Dough 48 72 16:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I hesitate a bit starting this discussion, but some comments above on JC's bot have had me thinking about this again. I wonder if we shouldn't propose, for USRD purposes only, a national standard on the formatting of the abbreviation for US Highways. (Please note, this would be a USRD standard only, because unless we post at the village pump or in other locations to notify a much wider community, articles on other subjects like TV stations that link to adjacent highways may or may not follow our standards, even now.)
Here's the situation as I see it now. Each state DOT or equivalent has an in-house abbreviation for their route logs. Each state has a different common usage for what a highways is called in that state. In some states, the abbreviation for U.S. Route 1 might be US-1, others US 1 or U.S. 1. Some states are U.S. Route states; others are U.S. Highway states. Dealing with the latter difference is easy. For U.S. Route 41 in Michigan (which has a U.S. Highway 41 in Michigan redirect in place), I simply overrode the infobox and used the word "Highway" in the lead piping links as required.
The former difference though isn't as nice. Take for example, U.S. Route 50 in Utah. The infobox lists the continuations into and from Nevada and Colorado. {{ Jct}} abbreviates U.S. Route 50 in Nevada as US 50, and the same for U.S. Route 50 in Colorado. In Utah, however, it is abbreviated US-50. So the only place in the entire article where the former abbreviation type is used is the infobox, while the rest of the article uses the latter.
What I am proposing we do is try to achieve some consensus on a single abbreviation standard, regardless of the individual DOTs preferences. Interstates are this way already by default. Texas, and IIRC one or two others, are the exception by using IH-10 instead of I-10, but the overwhelming majority of states would use I-10. At this time, I would not propose changing the status quo on Interstates. Instead, I'm only suggesting changes dealing with the US Highways because there are a wide range of abbreviations in use, we could come to a consensus on which to use, and implement it nationally. Other projects would not be forced to implement our decision, but they could see that we have a single, well-discussed consensus, and they could follow along for conformity sake, or not. I'm not debating that one abbreviation standard is better than any other, just that we could have one for all states and be done with it. (States like Wisconsin where US 41 would be more commonly called just Highway 41 versus Illinois which calls it Route 41 wouldn't be affected by this proposal for the simple fact that I'm proposing here is a standardization of the format of US 41 vs. US-41, etc. Writers would still be free to spell the names out in longer formats to break up the monotony of prose. The state vernaculars should be retained.)
If we decide that this is something we would like to do, I think we would vote later on which standard to implement, but for now, let's keep the discussion to the merits of the idea, not the details. 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I once used U.S. x in Oklahoma, but someone sent a bot/AWB thru and changed it all to US-x. Personally, I would prefer U.S. x as that looks most professional to me, but it looks sort of weird in exit lists... — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Should this even exist? -- Rs chen 7754 04:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of auxiliary Interstate Highways Imzadi1979 ( talk) 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 9 - apparently maps made with Quantum GIS and NHPN and TIGER data are too professional to be freely licensed. – T M F 01:31, 10 January 2010 (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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
This is just a FYI - User:71.8.199.1 has been adding random references to Interstate 70 in Nevada to articles and performing other vandalism. Below is a copy of a post received on my talk page, with links: -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You blocked this user on the 17th for its disruptive editing to highway articles. Just to let you know, whilst it was blocked here, the IP has moved over to Commons and carried on doing similar edits to images. ( Thread on Commons AN). I've also quickly checked and the account is making similar edits on the French and German wikis, and probably others.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 11:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I am running into a situation here. I wanna expand routes like the above mentioned, Pennsylvania Route 415, but this route for example has a strange dilemma. Originally, when Route 415 was assigned in 1928, the route went to the western side of Harveys Lake in Luzerne County. The route to the eastern side was Route 515. In 1946, Route 515 was decommissioned in favor of two Route 415s! That is the dilemma. How do we cover a route which is signed heading bi-directionally on two sides of the lake. It is not a one-way couplet, but a bi-directional Route 415 on the western side of the lake and another bi-directional Route 415 on the eastern side of the lake (known as SR 1415 internally). How do we cover this is what I have come to ask. I am pretty sure there's more routes that do this, and wanna make sure we have some kind of standards. It would not make sense to cover the RD to cover one side specifically, as signage makes 415 mainline in 2 directions. In this case, would a separate article on State Route 1415 (Luzerne County, Pennsylvania) (or Pennsylvania Route 515) be worth for the eastern side, or is there a good way to cover both routes in the article?Mitch32( Want help? See here!) 01:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No need to say anything - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connecticut Route 140.Mitch32( Want help? See here!) 22:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Apparently there is a new part of WP:MOS that we have to follow - WP:ALT, which was brought up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 70 in Colorado/archive1. It seems that there are 4 steps to bringing USRD articles into full compliance:
Any comments? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems that right now (except for concerns on 3) the only thing we cannot currently provide WP:ALT compliance for is #4. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
marker_image=FOO
shouldn't be a problem, as FOO
uses full image syntax, and that can include alt text. If FOO
contains multiple images, each can contain its own alt text. If I'm wrong, could you please give a counterexample?
Eubulides (
talk)
09:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this is quite refreshing. I log on to wikipedia today, and find out that while I was out, you all took care of this. Thanks TMF, Rschen, LJ, NE2, Eubulides and whomever else I missed. I may need one of you to give me a digest, as I'm not sure I got all of this. Dave ( talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The numbered items refer to the list above
Dave ( talk) 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I experimented with ALT on New Jersey Route 208. Can somebody look over it to make sure I am doing it right? Dough4872 ( talk) 17:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:County Route 626 (Cape May County, New Jersey). Basically, the deal is whether or not to merge New Jersey Route 162 and County Route 626 (Cape May County, New Jersey). Dough4872 ( talk) 15:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Another merge along this line concerns New Jersey Route 13. This route is the internal designation for the state-maintained Lovelandtown Bridge which connects to County Route 632 (Ocean County, New Jersey) on both ends. How should these three redundant articles possibly be combined into one? Dough4872 ( talk) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
-- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I am speaking as an administrator here giving rationale for my actions. This seems like the place where people would read it who care.
The 75.47 IP removing major cities boxes is User:I-10, who was indefinitely banned within the last year. Wikipedia policy is to revert all banned users' edits. While yes, it is a pain to have to go back and redo those edits, especially when they do follow our new guideline regarding major cities boxes, we need to protect the encyclopedia by discouraging this banned user (who has caused us much hardship) from ever editing Wikipedia again. Therefore, we need to apply WP:RBI across the board, and this means reverting / rollbacking all his edits. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I'm trying to block User:75.47.128.0/19 instead now as that's a smaller rangeblock (only blocking the correct half, I hope). If this backfires then I'll block the original range again. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this is speculation or if this is reliable or what. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Recently a user moved St. Paul Street-Calvert Street to Maryland Route 2 in Baltimore. What they basically did was rename a fine article title to something nonstandard and copied information from the MD 2 article, which itself is well-written. What should be done here? I would think reverting the move. Dough4872 ( talk) 02:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_31#Category:State_highways_inspired_by_US_highways Dave ( talk) 05:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
In the GA review for New Jersey Route 64, there is currently a huge issue over whether the route is north-south or east-west. It is orientated in a east-west direction and considered that in the legislation for its predecessor 31A, but is marked north-south on the straight line diagram. I wanted greater opinion on what direction the route should be considered. (It is not signed in the field.) Dough4872 ( talk) 00:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
An IP editor has made a number of changes to roads articles, which given his/her record are probably not good edits please see here I don't know enough about roads in the US to be sure, could somebody who has better knowledge have a look. -- Drappel ( talk) 19:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi project, I want to inform you, that I found this template and it is not used. So Template:Infobox Interstate/Business has been nominated for deletion. Your members are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Greetings. Sebastian scha. ( talk) 18:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Where's the western end of U.S. Route 14? The article lede says it ends at the east entrance of Yellowstone National Park, but the "Wyoming" section of the route description and Google Maps both have it ending at West Thumb, well inside the park. -- Carnildo ( talk) 00:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Nomination restrictions which may interest you guys, as you nominate GA's fairly regularly. Jeni ( talk) 16:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
[3] [4] It's obvious this guy doesn't care about WP:USSH. Could an administrator take care of any blocks if necessary? (I'm stepping out for a few days). -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I could use some help cleaning up U.S. Route 23 in Michigan. I've added a section describing the route, as well as some sources, but I don't know where to find more sources, or what else the article needs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Some concerns have arisen regarding the inclusion of major intersections tables on every USRD article. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
We have an old Project News sidebar (located at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/news) that is no longer updated, having been replaced by the {{ USRD Announcements}} template. The outdated newsbar is still linked in the USRD project navigation bar found on most USRD pages. It appears that the only pages linking to the old news bar are those using the USRD nav bar. Since we're dealing with an outdated/deprecated page, would there be any objection to removing the Project News link from the nav bar (or replacing with a link to the announcements template) and deleting the old news page? -- LJ ( talk) 22:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the three sidebars for TfD. -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC) I have also nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/news for MfD. -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida State Road 600A (2nd nomination) -- NE2 05:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Route 64 -- NE2 19:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I hope the tide for auto-notability of primary numbered roads doesn't change. Can you imagine the chaos that would result? We'd have to basically redo half of all we've ever done and we'd be spending most of our time debating whether a route is notable enough or not. If that tide changes, I quit. -- Triadian ( talk) 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Talk:U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey#Merging Trenton Freeway. Dough4872 ( talk) 22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Roadology, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadology. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Triadian ( talk) 05:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Avenue of the Saints -- Fredddie ™ 01:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of merges, I noticed New Jersey Route 180 is back. -- NE2 01:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
(section renamed by doncram from "another merger candidate" for more specific reference later)
Puerto Rico Highway 14 and Carretera Central (Puerto Rico). The Carretera Central is a historic road that runs along PR-14 from Ponce to Cayey and then follows PR-1 from Cayey to San Juan. I think it makes more sense to discuss PR-14 in the context of the historic road. Currently, User:Doncram is opposed to merging. I would like to solicit opinions as to whether this is a good idea. Thanks. -- Polaron | Talk 16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This may be a case where there is enough history for two separate articles. Compare Albany Post Road/ Old Albany Post Road (which probably should be merged together) and U.S. Route 9 in New York, or Lancaster Turnpike (why does this have a junction list?) and U.S. Route 30 in Pennsylvania. (For the record, U.S. Route 66 in Kansas has been merged into its modern designation, but that's a very short segment.) -- NE2 19:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Interstate 5 in California - the article to be merged in is Santa Ana Freeway. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 12#Former and future Interstate Highway categories – T M F 01:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/66.66.117.141
This user has been on an editing spree, mostly playing with the termini and junction lists. These edits looked somewhat questionable. I'm not 100% familiar with the guidelines for those anymore, but I noticed this user has a pattern of violating those guidelines, so I'm posting here. -- Sable232 ( talk) 02:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I gave him a final warning. If he continues I'll just give short term blocks. The guy does not respond at all to messages on his talk page. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This is just a call for help - please check your Commons watchlist more frequently (especially those who upload a lot of USRD stuff there). Unfortunately, we have had several users going through and making a mess of our organization system there, and very few users are watching it. Thanks! -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
If anyone is bored, here's a debate regarding the western terminus of BC 7 - from the looks of it I think this would be an easy thing for an experienced USRD user to do. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 19:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed that the abbreviations used for New Jersey State Routes in Template:Infobox road/NJ/abbrev NJ is in violation of WP:USSH, as it uses "NJ X" rather than "Route X" that is called for. Other states that use "Route X", such as MA, are abbreviated as such in the template. A previous discussion from 2006 called for the "Route X" abbreviation to be changed to "NJ X", but this is a violation of USSH. Should this be changed back in order to comply with USSH? Dough4872 ( talk) 21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
My take is that abbreviations in prose should definitely be allowed under USSH as long as they serve as a shortening of the common name specified by USSH. This has been the de facto practice, at least in New York and Vermont, for years, even before SRNC. – T M F 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The strange thing is that NJDOT almost never uses New Jersey Route x, but they do use NJ x as an abbreviation: [8] [9] -- NE2 13:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
After seeing a comment from another editor on WT:USSH, I think this abbreviation issue needs to be dealt with. I've put together a preliminary list of "official" short-form abbreviations (which I'm sure isn't perfect), so please comment further at WT:USSH#Abbreviations_of_names. My goal is to add this to the table on WP:USSH once it's been finalized, creating an official centralized list of abbreviations that editors can reference. -- LJ ( talk) 06:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 29 re {{ I-45 aux}} -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Some of our project pages are a bit outdated (relating to the 2006-2008 era when we were going in between arbitration cases) and I'm updating them where there is nothing controversial about the rewordings. However there are two things that are controversial and that there is no easy way to reword. I'll bring up the first one: sections 6.5 and 9.1 (both relating to project subordination). Surely there must be some more elegant and less inflammatory way to say something similar? I remember that I added those sections in a hurry during some random debate a few years ago, and now it just seems awkward. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) There's also a scope issue by making them task forces. Moving a project to a subpage of USRD essentially turns it into a generic road project whether or not it was a state highway-only project or not by way of the simple name ("Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/West Virginia" and such). – T M F 04:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily a great topic to bring up, but the {{ disputed}} tags have been on WP:USRD and WP:CASH for a year, and it's not exactly attractive to new users. Any thoughts? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Moving the inactive projects to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/<whatever the project was named, minus WikiProject>? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Scary thought, isn't it? This would be a golden opportunity to do some strategic planning.
First we should define a vision, which is currently covered badly by the project's scope. The vision needs to be clear, unambiguous, and realistic. Example:
This WikiProject aims to create the most accurate and most searched resource on the Internet about roads in the United States.
Next, a mission, which should provide direction. Example:
We at this WikiProject are committed to working together to create quality content, set reasonable standards, set aside personal differences, and appropriately resolve conflicts for the benefit of all readers of Wikipedia. Should some editors not be able to follow these procedures, they should step aside for a while and allow other editors to continue editing. No one editor controls this WikiProject, but a veteran editor's opinions should be respected.
Then, a list of goals which we all would share. Examples:
- Allow other WikiProjects which may cover a topic or article better to do so
- Consolidate all articles and sub-projects under WP:USRD
- Create task forces for each state, organizing them under both WP:USRD and that state's WikiProject
- Identify other areas of the project which require task forces
- Create standards for the project
- Uphold those standards
Obviously, this is a radical solution. And obviously, this is how I would organize USRD if this were Fredddiepedia.
In reality, though, WP:USRD is a mess and could use some form of reorganization. -- Fredddie ™ 19:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It's been a few weeks... what are people's thoughts? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
(od) I don't remember what my take at the time was, but my take now is that since the title of this project is U.S. Roads, all articles on roads in the U.S. should be within the scope of this project. The scope given above corresponds more to a project titled "U.S. Numbered Highways" or some sort (putting aside the fact that United States Numbered Highways is the official name of the U.S. Highway System). For me, the more contentious issue is the tagging of articles outside a subproject's scope as being part of that subproject. Just because an article falls within the scope of USRD and is located in a particular state does not necessarily mean that it automatically falls within the scope of a subproject in that state. However, that's a topic for another discussion since this one is geared toward this project's scope. – T M F 20:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Another idea that has come to my head is to possibly launch task forces for states that do not yet have a project. These pages can list article standards particularly associated with that state. Dough4872 ( talk) 22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
So... should we start a straw poll to see if this works? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 19:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
We are trying to redefine the project's scope. Should we...
Regardless of the result above, it's likely that WikiProject U.S. Streets will be greatly affected. That project's scope is loosely defined as roads and streets not covered by USRD. Would USST be better served...
Nobody has voted in over a week. Is it safe to close the straw poll and start hashing out the verbiage of the scope?? --
Fredddie
™
03:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
How should we go about deciding what goes into the scope? Should those who want to write something out do so and have the rest of us vote on it? -- Fredddie ™ 20:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, first of all let's get this settled, as it's really the core of the scope issues: What goes into USRD and what into USST? In founding USST, my original idea was for all city streets related article to fall under USST and only USST, while USRD handled the numbered routes. The idea here is that USRD handles the broad, state-level view of the route, while USST hones the local importance and history to that city. It is clear to me (though it may not really be to others) that these are two different styles of writing, requiring two different kinds of expertise in the members of that project. Compare Kansas Turnpike or any of our FAs to Rush Street and note the differences in the types of things we focus on; while "History" in the USRD sense covers things like construction history, challenges to construction, and realignment history, the history of a street will consist of more human factors like how that street is placed in the community, significant community events that's happened on that street, etc. In some cases a street will become iconic for a community, industry or even the culture prevalent in its environment (probably the best example of this is Castro Street in San Francisco, or Wall Street). Obviously these sorts of things are not likely to be covered well by a USRD editor, who is more attuned to tracing a numbered route and its changes throughout the years and doesn't generally focus on the social implications of a route beyond that which may have challenged its construction.
To this end the two separate projects were established. However for some reason we ended up with many articles tagged with both! This is doubleplusungood. Perhaps even tripleplusungood. Just because a city street happened to carry a numerical designation at some point does not mean that it should be included in USRD. The reason here is that in the majority of cases there will be two articles: one focusing on the numerical route (which we will call Hwy 41 for the sake of example) and one focusing on the section of city street (we'll call it, oh, Wigley Street). The Hwy 41 article's makeup should be familiar in all of our heads because we've written it countless times. You've written the history of Hwy 41 before, built its junction list, described its route. Wigley Street's article will be completely different. In it, the designation as Hwy 41 will be of little importance and as such only noted in passing. Its history section will start by discussing who Mr. Wigley was and why the street was named after him, launching into early development along the street, and the type of demographics which eventually evolved along the street and surrounding neighborhoods. You know what I mean, whether it has a certain ethnicity attached to it, if it is a poor, middle-class, or rich neighborhood, types of zoning (industrial, retail, residential, etc.), and perhaps prominent local businesses along its route. The types of details included within this city street article are too fine to include in a numbered route article, and the types of details included in a numbered route article are too broad to include in a city street article. They are entirely separate. I encourage those of you who may doubt this to take the article on Rush Street or Castro Street, and to try going about writing another article about it in the same way you would a USRD article, using the USRD standards and format. Notice the difficulties in doing so. Notice what you have to leave out.
The only situation in which a city street should carry both tags is when the numbered route is wholly the city street. (That is, a completely urban route assigned to just one stretch of street). In such cases, the articles would be merged, and the numbered route would probably end up subservient to the city street purposes. In conclusion, articles on city streets and numbered highways are two completely different animals and writing them two different tasks. It takes a different kind of editor to write each one well. That is why I feel they should be completely separated from one another in terms of projects and why city street articles should not fall under USRD. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
So anyway... a written scope? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 08:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Nearly two months ago, we had a poll at WT:ELG to see if junction list and exit lists should follow the same standard and if colors should be allowed in exit lists. No one has voted for about a month and a half and at this point the majority of the votes lean toward one standard for junction and exit lists without color. At this point, I am considering closing the poll and modifying the ELG to call for two things: One, a sentence in the lead saying junction lists for surface roads fall under the same standard, and two, a note somewhere indicating that colors are prohibited with the exception of the light gray for proposed or former interchanges. I want some feedback on how I can make these changes in an efficient way. Dough4872 ( talk) 17:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) My criteria for inclusion has been if MDOT has numbered the crossing roadway on the state map. That means all state highways and the County-Designated Highways are included, but not other county roads. Since not all counties participate in the CDH system though, I've added other major county roads, where appropriate, to balance out. As an example, on the M-35 article, Menominee County does use CDHs, but Marquette doesn't. Marquette County numbers major county roads, and only letters the rest. The only other time I've included county roads not on the CDH system is when they are mentioned in the route description or memorial highway section as a terminus for a memorial highway name. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 03:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
How would the new ELG guidelines work for Washington state? The last major renumbering (addition and deletion of SRs) was in 1991 and WSDOT marks all former routes and alignments in their Highway Logs. – CG 15:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Have we agreed on a standard of what junctions should be listed (besides county routes, which will vary by state)? Dough4872 ( talk) 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
So... it seems that we've decided on a state-by-state basis? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
How is this for a tentative proposed rewording for the ELG for a section concerning junction lists:
In addition to covering exit lists, it has been decided that junction lists for surface roads, as well as "hybrid" lists for roads that are both surface and freeway, should fall under the same standards as exit lists. In deciding what junctions should be included, the decision should be left to the individual WikiProject overseeing roads for that region.
Obviously, for USRD, this would be Interstates, U.S., state highways, select county routes, and any other road notable for an article as determined above. Other WikiProjects would decide their own standards for what routes should be included. Dough4872 ( talk) 18:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
(od) I'm not sure what you mean. What each state decides to include is up to the relevant subproject...unless you mean deciding what junctions every state should have at minimum. – T M F 01:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume that the "former junctions" in "Colors are not to be used in either junction or exit lists with the exception of the gray shading for unbuilt or former junctions" refer to closed junctions since the gray former route shading has been deprecated and phased out for months. – T M F 20:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In addition, it should also be noted that the major intersections section for roads with freeway and non-freeway sections should be combined into one table, as in New Jersey Route 29. Dough4872 ( talk) 20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Both WP:CASH and WP:NYSR have been updated with this sort of information. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Highways along the BosWash corridor -- NE2 09:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island is currently being discussed at articles for deletion. Your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
[10] Could someone comment on this? Basically, I went through my Thomas Guide collection, which is very generous on what is major, and removed all the streets that were not marked as major in it. Also, according to [11] [12] it is Goldenwest Street, not Golden West Street as AL2TB claims the sign says. A sign is not a RS, but several maps (including Thomas Guide, Yahoo Maps, and Google Maps) are. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
More sources for refutation of possible future arguments: City of Westminster official and City of Huntington Beach official maps. Sswonk ( talk) 18:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
[13] -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 1 re {{ junction}} -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I can speak from experience that adding, for instance, BC shields, will get them removed within minutes for TMF's reason. -- Fredddie ™ 18:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Massachusetts Department of Transportation#Merge discussion. Sswonk ( talk) 05:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this, I believe it is vandalism but would like someone else to confirm and revert if necessary. Sswonk ( talk) 04:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If anyone has the time, the above FLC needs reviewers. Yes, that is a Canadian road FLC and this is the US roads project, but any expertise you all can offer is appreciated. Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Signups are beginning! There have been a few changes to simplify the contest to judge. The contest will start Jan 1. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 12:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate more input at Talk:Bannered routes of Virginia State Route 234. -- NE2 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 11 Dave ( talk) 07:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm tired of having to deal with stuff like this: [14]. Control cities for intersecting roads that are not freeways add very little to the article, and encourage editors to add nonnotable junctions to trash perfectly good junction lists. I am proposing adding a section to WP:ELG prohibiting the addition of control cities to junction lists if the intersecting road in question is not a freeway. An alternate plan is to remove them from all junction lists across USRD. Comments? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
If there's a control city (at least a major city), it's a major intersection, is it not? -- NE2 07:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's my take on the issue. The control cities need to stay in exit lists for freeways as the ELG calls for the entries of exit lists to appear as it would on the road signs. However, for junctions along a surface road, the issue is more contentious. For many surface roads, I tried to include any destinations that can be seen on signs at the junctions. In order to determine what cities to include, I usually look at Google Street View or photos taken by roadfans. However, it appears the practice of including control cities on surface roads vary by state. For example, most Maryland articles show the control cities for every junction, while many from New Jersey and Pennsylvania do not. I do not see any issue for listing control cities along surface roads. It appears the larger issue at hand is the listing of minor junctions. The recent changes made to the ELG call for each state to determine what junction is major for a junction list; however, only a few states have decided upon this. We need to make sure every state has a standard for what junctions should be in a junction list. --- Dough 48 72 23:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
(od) Personally, I have a sliding scale of notability. If a route is 5 miles long and only intersects numbered highways at its termini, I might be inclined to include less notable roads. If a road has more than about 3 intersections with numbered highways, I will rarely include non-numbered roads. If I do include them, they are notable for scenic or historical reasons. The problem is how do you codify that into an enforceable standard? I would hope we can agree that a for a route over a hundred miles long that crosses most of a large state, only in rare cases should a non-numbered road be listed in the junctions list. Dave ( talk) 07:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the step of opening Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gill Giller Gillerger 2. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 09:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
As some of you know, I created the article U.S. Route 19 Alternate (St. Petersburg, Florida). But because of the fact that it goes through major cities such as Largo, Clearwater, and Dunedin, I'm thinking of renaming the article U.S. Route 19 Alternate (Pinellas County, Florida). Does anybody think that'd be a good idea? Keep in mind, it also goes into a sliver of Pasco County( Holiday), but not enough of one to include that in the name. ---- DanTD ( talk) 14:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
In this scenario, I think it may be best to use the termini to identify the route. "St. Petersburg" would imply that it is the only city the alternate route runs through, which is not true, and county disambiguation would not work since it exists in more than one county. --- Dough 48 72 22:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Notice how the Santa Ana Freeway portion of the Interstate 5 in California exit list is on the Santa Ana Freeway article. Is this something we want to do? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
{| <!-- Template:Collapse top --> class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #CFC;" | Hidden for ease of scrolling
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |
{{:Santa Ana Freeway}}{{Reflist}}
|}
or use onlyinclude tags around the list at the freeway article (done).
Sswonk (
talk) 00:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Edited to prevent incorrect categorization of this page.
DexDor
(talk)
16:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
If only one list is left after this discussion, this is the way to do it:
{{anchor|Santa Ana Freeway exits}}
at I-5 CA where Santa Ana Freeway begins and the link
[[Interstate 5 in California#Santa Ana Freeway exits|Interstate 5 in California exit list]]
in the Santa Ana Freeway list in the colspan.I think that is preferable to either maintaining two separate lists with duplicated content or splitting the list between articles with the overlap appearing only in Santa Ana Freeway. I-5 CA should have the complete list. An HTML comment could be placed in the list at Santa Ana Freeway saying in so many words "don't change this it's a consensus decision". Sswonk ( talk) 04:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The detailed exit list should go where the other details of that segment are: the Santa Ana Freeway article. It's more likely that a reader will want to check the exits on the Santa Ana Freeway while reading about the Santa Ana Freeway. For instance, if you read how it was opened from Fire Canyon Road to Wet Stream Avenue in 1932, you might then want to see where those are in relation to other interchanges. -- NE2 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that maybe we should get a wider range of input on this; right now it seems we're at a stalemate. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe this discussion is still active, I am adding a comment at the bottom to hold for ten more days against bot archiving. Sswonk ( talk) 01:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Single list. No, it's not unanimous, but it's a clear majority. We have to choose one option, and this is the one most people support. Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The choices are above. Time to get this dealt with. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Template talk:Jct#Enabling "banners" for NY. The section has been there since August and I can't fix it since the documentation for the inner workings of the template is shoddy at best. – T M F 23:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Examples:
NY 9D /
NY 52 Bus.
US 20 /
NY 9D /
NY 52 Bus.
Looks like everything's resolved now, with thanks to Fredddie ( talk · contribs). – T M F 00:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geronimo Trail -- Fredddie ™ 06:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 4#Template:I-83 aux --- Dough 48 72 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright there are several Wikipedia Books that are related to US roads, so if you could update the US road banner to handle the book-class, that would be of tremendous help since the members of WikiProject Comics have a lot more clue when US roads are concerned than we have over at WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, and thus will be able to give better feedback on content, deletion discussions, etc...
Since most of you don't know what Wikipedia-Books are, here's a crash course. Basically they are collections of articles which you can download or order in print. I would really recommend to go through Help:Books and Help:Books/for experts to see what this is all about.
For example of a US Roads-related books, see WP:Books/New York State Route 20N and WP:Books/State touring routes in Warren County, New York (you can view the PDFs here and here). Needless to say a lot more books could be made, so if you want to give it a try, you have lots of room. It really doesn't take long to create books (at least compared to writing new articles) since all you have to do is find existing articles and arrange them into something that makes sense. And if you create a book, don't forget to place {{ Wikipedia-Books}} on pages that should link to the books, otherwise no one will know these exist.
If you have questions, just ask and I'll answer as best I can. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Washington State Route 20. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 09:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Interstate 82 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. 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) 09:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I came across this today regarding UK exit lists. If anyone's interested... -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Washington State Route 20. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 09:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Washington State Route 410. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Washington State Route 410. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 21:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Devils Tower National Monument. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Washington State Route 529. Not really sure if this is where it should be merged to though. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 11:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 12#Various auxiliary Interstate templates. --- Dough 48 72 16:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Iowa Highway 370. -- Fredddie ™ 00:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 287#Merging Cross-Westchester Expressway. --- Dough 48 72 04:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
This was originally envisioned as a separate project and it was only absorbed later into I-287 so in the long run I think this will be split off. However, because of the almost stubby state of the main text of the article, I agree that merging is the way to go until someone can make a full-fledged article in the future. -- Polaron | Talk 23:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:New Jersey Route 33. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Please visit the above page and review the article; this has been open for almost 6 months. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The scope has been tagged as {{ disputed}} for almost 2 years. I put a scope that closely resembles the status quo. If you have any problems, please discuss here (do not edit war), so we can at least get a discussion started. I decided I would take the initiative to get this resolved. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This WikiProject maintains articles relating to roadways of national or regional significance in the United States. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following:
Articles not maintained by this project, with some exception, include:
I was randomly looking through some of the USRD assessment categories just now. I found out that for Wisconsin, we have tagged 1066 redirect-class articles. That's right 1,066 redirect-class articles in Wisconsin!?! It seems that someone went through and created a talk page for every redirect that exists for all the Wisconsin articles. I thought we only used this class tag on the main article's talk page if the article page is converted to a redirect as a result of a merge (especially if the old talk page has discussion on it). I imagine we could get rid of most, if not all, of these useless talk pages. -- LJ ( talk) 05:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There's quite a few of these useless talk pages:
So how do we begin to go about eliminating these under CSD-G6 criterion? -- LJ ( talk) 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the edits made by 71.48.97.82 ( talk · contribs) to Interstate 287? Basically, this user is removing informationn without an explanation. I have tried to revert their edits, but they keep getting changed back. --- Dough 48 72 18:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
On the same vein as this is 98.81.2.95 ( talk · contribs). Who knows, it might be the same guy. Unlike the one above, though, this guy is changing wording on multiple articles. Also, some of the edits (like [16]) are of pretty poor quality. (To me anyway, I don't see how "about" means the same thing as "circa".) – T M F 02:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
And another: 204.255.30.12 ( talk · contribs) – T M F 13:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem here. A roadgeek who is also a Wikipedia editor removed this section citing policy in WP:DIRECTORY. I don't want to mention who for reasons, but he then got reverted as vandalism. I reverted that reversion, which removed the list, and I've been reverted, citing WP:DIRECTORY allowing for lists of people. Outside of the fact Roadgeek has been up for AFD 5 times, and it probably doesn't need to stay. I would solve this myself, but I have a massive conflict of interest as I know most of the people in real life, and can't really get involved. If people want to leave input on the situation, it would be helpful.Mitch32( A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 20:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Roadgeek#Notable roadgeeks. -- NE2 11:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's a dynamic list of recent changes related to Stub-Class USRD articles. Might be worth watching for bad edits that would usually go under the radar. (I can do one of these for the other classes too.) – Juliancolton | Talk 12:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
{{ Welcomeroad}} has been updated! It is now based upon {{ W-basic}}, a standard welcome template. {{ Welcomeroadip}} now redirects to Welcomeroad because W-basic had some boilerplate text for IP editors that I utilized. -- Fredddie ™ 00:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 19#Interstate navboxes with three links. --- Dough 48 72 04:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Most of the articles about Virginia state routes serving institutions are stubs and will never be anything else; their sole purpose is to provide access to the institution. I'm wondering if these stubs should be combined into a larger article (this is already done with "bannered routes"). Most of these routes are in the 300-399 range. See the List of primary state highways in Virginia for a thorough listing. -- Tim Sabin ( talk) 00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion at WP:USRD/NT -- Fredddie ™ 23:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
There are 3140 counties in the United States. Do we want 3140 lists of highways in each county? (I suppose there are independent cities and Alaska divisions too.) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It really depends on the naming of the article. For my Ontario articles, I'm naming them 'list of numbered roads in Foo', which means the article isn't intended only for the county road system, but rather a broader coverage of all numbered routes. Of course, the US system is far more complex. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
So... what does this mean for the routes lists that exist? --
Rschen7754 (
T
C)
02:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Elliptical highway shield (what the...)
[17] is a bit strange - is this someone we know? -- NE2 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
TFD of {{ Control cities}}. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 18. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Arizona State Route 202. -- Fredddie ™ 01:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 20 - for {{ State Roads in Indiana}} -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This was added to WP:USRD/STDS a couple of years back. My question is is it really feasible on longer toll roads, such as the New York State Thruway, which has over two dozen service areas? As of the time of posting the section looks like this: an ugly bulleted list that violates the MOS in three different spots. Thoughts? – T M F 19:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
This term is used in a number of articles about roads. Could someone perhaps make an article on exactly what that means and why it's important to know? 98.249.238.176 ( talk) 05:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Should this exist (the article, not the route :))? -- NE2 11:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This has been merged with Massachusetts Route 28 but another user is against merging. Comments regarding the appropriateness of the merge are welcome. See Talk:Massachusetts Route 28A for discussion. -- Polaron | Talk 05:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Arkansas Highway 72 Spur - not sure where it should be merged to. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 19:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The USRDCup contest begins January 1! Currently only 5 editors are signed up. This contest will encourage editors to improve USRD articles. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Pennsylvania Turnpike#Merging Interstate 276. --- Dough 48 72 16:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I've recently been thinking about articles on named interchanges ( SuperRedTan Interchange, Fort Smith Junction, Grandview Triangle as examples). A lot of our coverage on them is rather poor. I have a few questions that I think we as a project need to answer:
Please share your thoughts on this, guys. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
1) I believe we should have articles on them if they're notable; more specifically, if a decently-sized, fully referenced article not full of fluff can be written about the interchange, I don't see why we shouldn't have an article on it. As for eliminating the ones that don't meet this...either AFD them or merge them to the primary highway through the interchange. 2) Location, roads served, layout (including the type of interchange if applicable), and history (construction of the interchange itself, not of the highways leading into them) are musts. Perhaps use "Description" for these articles instead of "Route description"? Also, I would ax the junction list since there's no need for anything remotely close to that. 3) For me, a B-Class (complete) interchange article would be one with a completed infobox (Infobox road junction was made a while ago), a complete and referenced description, and a complete and referenced history. – T M F 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this really something we want to do? -- Rs chen 7754 02:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like only one editor is actively using that page. Also note the kinds of article that are requested there—there are state-detail routes, bannered routes and lists of county routes... just the kinds of articles we do not want created! — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Our project's guidelines for notability ( WP:USRD/NT) advise that usually a highway should have notable spans in at least 3 jurisdictions before being broken out into state detail articles. I would like to put this to the test; Should Interstate 8 be subject to, or excepted from, this guideline? (I've known about this for a while, but the above item with I-208 reminded me.)
I don't know the answer, I'm asking an honest question. I-8 only spans 2 states ( Arizona and California) and even if re-merged the exit list would not be as long as the exit list on some single state higways.
However I-8 also has the following mitigating factors:
So, what say ye? Again, I'm asking an honest question to test if our guidelines are appropriately written, knowing I-8 is a tough case. Dave ( talk) 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Worse comes to worst we could always axe the concept of state-detail articles and do away with exit lists (I'm sure gribblenation or aaroads or something would take them). — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think state-detail articles are a great idea as they break up what would otherwise be a very long article and can focus only on the history of the route within the given state. The history of a route between states is often unrelated as the roads are maintained by individual states and sometimes treated with the same equivalencies as state highways. In my opinion, state-detail articles should exist where there is enough material to write about that route in a particular state and it would otherwise make the main article too long. In the case of I-8, I believe the two state-detail pages are justified as there is a lot to say about both the CA and AZ segments of the road. --- Dough 48 72 04:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem likely that the current task forces (Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, South Carolina) will be repromoted anytime soon. Is there any opposition to changing the TF page to reflect this? In other words, removing stuff that's duplicated at WP:USRD/STDS, etc. -- Rs chen 7754 05:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I changed the WP:NVSH page. Does it look good? -- Rs chen 7754 19:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this something we want to do? -- Rs chen 7754 06:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
JCbot ( talk · contribs) completed its task of preforming general MOS/capitalization/style changes to highway articles; according to AWB, it made about 3,157 edits. Sorry for the watchlist/recent changes flood. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ Road list}} v. Table v. Bulleted list at Talk:List of state routes in Arizona -- Fredddie ™ 22:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 30 - {{ featuredNVSR}} -- Rs chen 7754 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Jack Schrade Interchange, Glendora Curve -- Rs chen 7754 03:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey. I have a bot, User:JCbot, pending BAG approval for its fourth task. The bot will preform general fixes on USRD-related articles, including:
Please list any further ideas for fixes the bot can easily preform.
– Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I happened to check my watchlist today (as I still do from time to time) and noticed your bot changed East-West Highway to east-west Highway in U.S. Route 1 in Maryland. Obviously that should be capitalized since it's the name of the highway. I already reverted it, but just giving the heads up. -Jeff (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
We need two more facts for the portal. Currently there are only three, with two being reused from December. Your help would be appreciated. -- Rs chen 7754 21:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 1#Template:CASH-SA. --- Dough 48 72 16:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I hesitate a bit starting this discussion, but some comments above on JC's bot have had me thinking about this again. I wonder if we shouldn't propose, for USRD purposes only, a national standard on the formatting of the abbreviation for US Highways. (Please note, this would be a USRD standard only, because unless we post at the village pump or in other locations to notify a much wider community, articles on other subjects like TV stations that link to adjacent highways may or may not follow our standards, even now.)
Here's the situation as I see it now. Each state DOT or equivalent has an in-house abbreviation for their route logs. Each state has a different common usage for what a highways is called in that state. In some states, the abbreviation for U.S. Route 1 might be US-1, others US 1 or U.S. 1. Some states are U.S. Route states; others are U.S. Highway states. Dealing with the latter difference is easy. For U.S. Route 41 in Michigan (which has a U.S. Highway 41 in Michigan redirect in place), I simply overrode the infobox and used the word "Highway" in the lead piping links as required.
The former difference though isn't as nice. Take for example, U.S. Route 50 in Utah. The infobox lists the continuations into and from Nevada and Colorado. {{ Jct}} abbreviates U.S. Route 50 in Nevada as US 50, and the same for U.S. Route 50 in Colorado. In Utah, however, it is abbreviated US-50. So the only place in the entire article where the former abbreviation type is used is the infobox, while the rest of the article uses the latter.
What I am proposing we do is try to achieve some consensus on a single abbreviation standard, regardless of the individual DOTs preferences. Interstates are this way already by default. Texas, and IIRC one or two others, are the exception by using IH-10 instead of I-10, but the overwhelming majority of states would use I-10. At this time, I would not propose changing the status quo on Interstates. Instead, I'm only suggesting changes dealing with the US Highways because there are a wide range of abbreviations in use, we could come to a consensus on which to use, and implement it nationally. Other projects would not be forced to implement our decision, but they could see that we have a single, well-discussed consensus, and they could follow along for conformity sake, or not. I'm not debating that one abbreviation standard is better than any other, just that we could have one for all states and be done with it. (States like Wisconsin where US 41 would be more commonly called just Highway 41 versus Illinois which calls it Route 41 wouldn't be affected by this proposal for the simple fact that I'm proposing here is a standardization of the format of US 41 vs. US-41, etc. Writers would still be free to spell the names out in longer formats to break up the monotony of prose. The state vernaculars should be retained.)
If we decide that this is something we would like to do, I think we would vote later on which standard to implement, but for now, let's keep the discussion to the merits of the idea, not the details. 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I once used U.S. x in Oklahoma, but someone sent a bot/AWB thru and changed it all to US-x. Personally, I would prefer U.S. x as that looks most professional to me, but it looks sort of weird in exit lists... — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Should this even exist? -- Rs chen 7754 04:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of auxiliary Interstate Highways Imzadi1979 ( talk) 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 9 - apparently maps made with Quantum GIS and NHPN and TIGER data are too professional to be freely licensed. – T M F 01:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)