![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Would someone with AWB care to look at the following articles and remove each instance of {{ Jct}}?
The goal of this is to remove these pages from Category:Jct template transclusions with missing shields. — Fredddie ™ 18:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of streets along the former U.S. Highway 99 in Washington. Dough 48 72 01:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Another: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memorial Drive (Atlanta) – Fredddie ™ 06:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking for some input on an article I've spent the last week re-researching and rewriting in a sandbox. The article on the Capitol Loop has already been rated at A-Class through our ACR process. I'd like a few editors from the project to give the article a once over and review it on the article's talk page. If there are any copy editing suggestions that you have, just go ahead and make them to the article. Most of the History section was rewritten from the new research and expanded. In fact, none of the history relies on MDOT sources except the date the roadway was transferred to state control. (It's been a project from long ago to find the proper newspaper articles to re-cite this article to remove the press releases previously used to cite the history.) I've expanded the lead, updated the traffic counts and tweak the RD a bit as well. My goal is to take this article to FAC at some point, but I'd appreciate some feedback and copy editing first. Imzadi 1979 → 08:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:U.S. Roads project articles to be merged is full of merge proposals, some of which have gone stale due to inactivity. Comments on the proposals (at the proposal location for simplicity) would be appreciated. – T M F 17:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Unless a highway designation is a redirect to a one of the bridge-related articles that were tagged in the project, I untagged them this evening. My reasoning is simple: there's already a project on Bridges that specializes in these subjects. The mere fact that a bridge carries cars doesn't make it fall under the scope of a project devoted to state highways. (The fact that a road carries cars doesn't make it a signed state or county highway either, and we don't tag those articles.) Some bridges though are the entirety of a state highway designation, and those I left alone. Basically, I was following what kind of infobox would appear on the article. If a bridge infobox is more appropriate, it was untagged. Imzadi 1979 → 05:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:State highways in Florida has 69 subcategories, all of which are titled "State Roads in <county> County, Florida". To me, this seems like far too narrow a scope for a category. Thoughts? – T M F 21:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the distance columns in junction lists. Wikipedia_talk:Mosnum#Permitting_metric_distances_in_road_tables – Fredddie ™ 21:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see discussion at wp:mosnum about metric units. Lightmouse ( talk) 21:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
What does everybody think about there being a new type= for interchanges on {{ USRD}}? – Fredddie ™ 05:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
|type=I
or |type=US
. We still add |state=
to those articles as appropriate to tag their location. It would be helpful to have them classified separately, maybe as a "pseudo" task force so we can work on assessment and standards for them a bit more.
Imzadi
1979
→
01:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, certainly the situation in the US is better than Malaysia. [1], and most of the ones that do exist should, unlike Malaysia. That said, I"m sure we could come up with a few other article types and map them out first before implementing any, as TMF suggested on IRC. Imzadi 1979 → 02:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
junction
instead. (*Malaysia currently has its own interchange template, which in all likelihood will get further revamped and merged into the generic IRJ. Before that happens though, there should be an AfD of probably 75% of the current articles because they fail
WP:GNG. The transclusion count on IRJ may increase in the near future as a result. )
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farm to Market Road 752 has been opened. Comment there if you wish. Imzadi 1979 → 10:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 1555 (Leon County, Florida) – T M F 21:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Another deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 857 (Monongalia County, West Virginia). Dough 48 72 00:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The Maryland State Highway Administration has once again made changes that have caused hundreds of deadlinks in Wikipedia references. SHA has made the filenames for all Highway Location Reference files shorter and more consistent, as well as streamlined the interface on their website for accessing individual county HLRs: [2].
The new URLs are of the form www.marylandroads.com/Location/YEAR_COUNTY.pdf YEAR is the four-digit year in the range 1999 to 2009. COUNTY is the name of the county in all-caps. For instance, the URL for the 2009 Caroline County HLR is www.marylandroads.com/Location/2009_CAROLINE.pdf Note the following special cases:
The old URLs for 2000 through 2009 were of the form apps.roads.maryland.gov/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/YEAR_hlr_all/coCO.pdf YEAR is the four-digit year in the range 2000 to 2009. CO is the two-digit county code explained in the collapsed table below. For instance, the 2008 HLR for Anne Arundel County was apps.roads.maryland.gov/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/2008_hlr_all/co02.pdf
The old URLs for 1999 were of the form apps.roads.maryland.gov/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/Allint_99_hlr/coCO.pdf, where CO is the two-digit county code.
Maryland Two-Digit County Codes
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Anyway, this is another project that would probably best be done via AWB, so I would much appreciate someone or a group proficient with that utility go through all of the Maryland state highway articles and update the reference URLs. — Viridiscalculus ( talk) 23:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force#Townships and jurisdictions on regional maps. – T M F 00:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The wording in the former WP:IH regarding infobox junctions found here was not merged to the new standards. Is this deliberate? I've not been following all the recent discussions closely but I don't remember having this wording overturned. Also, now that a major cities box is gone, it is all the more a good reason to list junctions in major cities in the infobox. There might be a potential issue in Interstate 95 regarding this. -- Polaron | Talk 14:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Only major junctions go into the Interstate routebox. These would be junctions with other Interstate Highways and/or junctions located in or near the central cities of major metropolitan areas with other important highways such as turnpikes and U.S. routes. Listing of multiple junctions in the same location should be avoided if possible. If any routebox has over 10 junctions, then some of the junctions need to be removed.
Compare an old version around the time the text above was inserted to WP:IH, and a recent version implying that only Interstate highways ending in 5 or 0 can be included. Which one is more helpful to the reader? -- Polaron | Talk 23:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Similarly, some clueless editor is using a warped interpretation of the standards on I-99. See [3]. – T M F 15:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
See [4] and [5]. Too bad this situation probably doesn't warrant a checkuser...yet. – T M F 13:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
All indef'ed. Let me know if more pop up. -- Rs chen 7754 05:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see WT:USRD/A. -- Rs chen 7754 04:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
See [6]. In short, a user replaced the actual child routes with the routes that replaced them, and I reverted for one simple reason: those routes aren't related to the parent route (here US 66), the routes they replaced were. It's been changed and reverted twice in the last week, so I figured I'd bring the issue here. – T M F 15:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, here's a little background. I was looking at the leaderboard tonight and I saw that Florida has almost moved out of the bottom 15. I was shocked, too. That got me thinking of starting up a part of the project for collaborating to get a state out of the bottom 10. Then I remembered AID.
WP:USRD/AID, if you recall, was the early incarnation of project collaboration which intended to get selected articles up to featured status. I think Ridge Route is the only article which AID worked on that became a FA; correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it was a direct result of AID.
Anyway, I'd like us, as a project, to select the state at the bottom of the leaderboard (currently Georgia) and spend 2-3 months destubbing and generally improving the whole lot of articles. The first week or so would be dedicated to finding reliable sources, to proposing ways to handle each state's special cases, to figuring out which articles needed the most attention first, and to setting goals to measure the success of the drive. After the first week, we can really get down to business improving articles.
The ultimate goal is to improve the encyclopedia, and I think this can work if we don't try to rush things. – Fredddie ™ 03:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm thinking it's a great idea to start with identifying sources for different states' highway systems. Creating those source directories will benefit current and future editors, and the whole process should help supplement the stub-reduction drive as a whole. Imzadi 1979 → 03:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I have written a program designed to convert hardcoded RJL table syntax into RJL template syntax! The first version is at http://www.rschen7754.com/programs.htm. The program is in the alpha stages but is being developed. -- Rs chen 7754 19:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything we can do about this? I've tried to warn the user quite a few times, to no avail. -- Rs chen 7754 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
See Utah State Route 79. What is the purpose of this? There should be a discussion somewhere that decided to implement this... can someone link me over to that? CL ( T · C) — 16:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
[9]. -- Rs chen 7754 17:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The following items have open nominations:
Please comment or review these items if you're interested. Imzadi 1979 → 00:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Ohio State Route 814#Merge proposal – T M F 07:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
More: Talk:James River Freeway#Merge proposal, Talk:Mount Hood Highway#Merge proposal – T M F 17:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York – Chicago Toll Road system. Imzadi 1979 → 20:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Marine 69-71#Roads Portal Links -- Rs chen 7754 20:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Tony, can you check out this message in my Talk. I am better at actual articles, and had been using whatever template was there already, and just expanded the articles or copied the See also portal part over to new road articles. Believe Quazaa may have added portal info also. Anyway, I will leave these decisions to you and the other admins. Can you answer this user yourself instead? I'll use whatever template you guys decide. Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 22:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE: Uff,,, looks like someone from the US Roads project went in there and changed them ALL to point to US Roads...
I don't get it, what is the difference anyway? Will we get better treatment (what ever that might mean) with the US Roads project people than with the global Roads project people? Or, to start with, is there such thing as a "global roads project people" if we are talking about portals ??? Seems this is just a matter of pointing to one portal vs the other portal...why would anybody care? what diff does it make? and for that matter, why not just point to BOTH portals, the "global" roads portal and the US roads portal as well and live happily ever after? Again I don't understand half the technical/wiki-reasoning stuff behind this, but seems to me there must be a significant reason and difference if this user TwinsMetsFan bothered him/herself enough to run a script to change them all. Thanks mentor,
Mercy11 (
talk)
23:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Highways Authority budget for road constructionthis fiscal year:
Mejoras Permanentes Fondo de Mejoras Públicas 0 Fondos Federales 116,733 Otros Ingresos 0 Préstamos y Emisiones de Bonos 38,119 Fondos Federales ARRA 63,055 Subtotal, Mejoras Permanentes 217,907
Federal funds ($116,733,000 in regular appropriations and $63,055,000 in special ARRA funds) represent over 80% of the total investment of $218 million. Pr4ever ( talk) 12:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
IF THE ARGUMENT IS HAD that the PR road articles should have the US Roads portal link using as the basis the argument of (i.e., "BECAUSE OF") Puerto Rico's receiving of federal funding for roads, then (for the benefit of complying with the NPOV policy) we must also allow for the argument that Puerto Rico sends more money into the U.S Treasury than it receives back via all US programs combined (including highway construction and maintenance funding)... My point is, both these arguments (plus all the others taht will inevitably follow) will fill hundreds of Talk pages and lead nowhere.
I proposed we stay away from political arguments while being sensitive to the underlying political views of all editors so we can move the work forward. Unfortunately the US Roads project people may not be as tuned to the political environment currently brewing in (and out of) Puerto Rico; so let's just say they innocently messed up.
I don't think anyone will get pumped up if we said the PR belongs to the world, but check out editors' reactions if we stated that PR belongs to the US (Note: I am not stating this is a fact or not a fact; I am simply stating it raises up the "guard" in editors)... This is why I propose the PR highway articles show (for those of you new to this: "as those articles always showed before"), ONLY the World Roads portal link. To include the US portal is likely to introduce an underlying political view that would be detrimental to moving forward with the project.
As for PR wikiproject's interaction with the US Roads group,,, that wouldn't be affected a bit: the PR road articles will continue to include the "This roads-related article is within the scope of the US Roads Wikipedia project" banner in the discussion page, and the articles would continue to be improved according to their well-documented standards.
If we were to arrive at a consensus on this, seems to me any decision, vote, preference, etc, should then be passed by the (very helpful) folks at the US Roads project to ensure we also get their views - if they have any further views to proffer - and from that point forward a final Resolution to the matter could be tendered by the PR Wikiproject group. Just my opinion on how this could be handled.
I vote the US Roads Portal NOT be included in the PR roads articles.
My name is
Mercy11 (
talk)
15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC) and I approve this message.
*For the first time ever, I find myself in disagreement with Mercy11 (just his vote, there are valid points above). Bottom line, I think that for the benefit of the articles, inclusion in the US Roads Portal will actually be more beneficial than controversial. It's just a portal link in the "See Also" section and IMO does not conotate any political overtones (even the portal image seems a little mundane..No offense to US Roads). Now as for the Funding argument, whether they offer, or we accept- we give, they take; I don't think the Roads care. And IMO, the articles about the roads should not either.
I Vote for Inclusion of both portals. Should this vote be moved to
WPPR? (sorry Tony!)
QuAz
GaA
16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
All of this discussion about fricking portal links?! Really? Just delete the damn things if they're so contentious, it's not like it's a necessary thing to have! — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
YES, imo, the U.S. Roads portal should be linked to from PR highway articles. This is my vote. And this represents my new conviction that doing this will be beneficial to both projects. (When I figure out how to cross-out my earlier "NO" vote, I will do it).
Mercy11 (
talk)
02:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Beating a dead horse here, however, now that List of county routes in Suffolk County, New York (1–25) exists. I have gone around and finished proposing merges of County Route 9, County Route 10, County Route 11, County Route 13, County Route 14, County Route 16, County Route 17, County Route 19, and County Route 21's articles. The merging of these articles has been a long debate and I think using the Rockland County Scenario, we can put this long heated discussion to rest.Mitch32( Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.) 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
In New York, different incarnations of route numbers are covered in separate articles. Thus, I don't envision CR 104 being merged into NY 113 anytime soon. The only two plausible scenarios is to 1) merge CR 104 into the RCS list whenever it's made or 2) rename the CR 104 article for the former state route. – T M F 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways numbered 500 – T M F 15:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices from the project and reassigned it to WikiProject Transport because I believe it is not within the scope and expertise of the project, but I was reverted, so I pose it here for a consensus decision. The project's scope is "articles relating to roadways of national or regional significance in the United States." The infrastructure of the project, including its assessment scale, is designed around articles about the roadways themselves. Looking at the articles within the project, I couldn't readily identify others on the subject of regulation. If this article were included, there are other similar articles concerning government agencies and transportation regulations this would be within that redefined scope. -- Bsherr ( talk) 15:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Although I made the nomination, the credit really goes to the whole project for creating and finding content for the articles, nominating features and ultimately maintaining the Portal. So thank you to everyone, you deserve pats on your backs for helping create a Featured Portal. Imzadi 1979 → 19:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roads in Maryland#Route Lists: Former Maryland State Highways Dough 48 72 20:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road construction in Houston, Texas -- Rs chen 7754 03:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why Central Texas Turnpike System requires a separate article from Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority which builds and maintains the tollways in that system. Fortguy ( talk) 17:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Dream out loud has nominated Pulaski Skyway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JJ98 ( Talk) 07:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This IP, 66.66.117.141 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), has been inserting county roads into pre-existing instances of {{ Jct}}. It's more annoying than troublesome, but it's made Category:Jct template transclusions with missing shields light up like a Christmas tree. Just another thing to keep an eye on. – Fredddie ™ 02:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've not seen a road article that had a more contentious tenure on the front page then our recent experience with Interstate 15 in Arizona. I suspect this is just a symptom the amount of article rot from the time of FAC review and the time featured on the page (this is one of our older FA's). If you compare today's version from 3 days ago, the article is substantially different. However, I think some good things have come out of this, that merit some wider discussion:
Thoughts please? Dave ( talk) 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone be against automatically sending (after a time period we determine) older Featured Articles to ACR? It could be a safeguard against article rot. I'm not proposing a full-on FAR, but ACR could help iron out the kinks that emerge. – Fredddie ™ 01:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the U.S. road transport articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It's the 20th of the month, and we only have 10 days left. We could use some DYK hooks for the portal for October. They can be anything that has run on the Wikipedia Main Page, or stuff that might have been nominated, if only the article met WP:DYK's requirements. Our portal doesn't require recent article creation, or specific amounts of expansion. All that's really needed is a catchy hook that's cited in the article. Any takers? Place your nominations here. Imzadi 1979 → 07:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
See here for details. Imzadi 1979 → 03:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The article has moved from the first stage to the second. It is now up for removal as a Featured Article, instead of just being reviewed. The areas of concern are: "referencing, comprehensiveness, updatedness, lead, formatting". If anyone is in a position to help clear up those concerns, the article could be kept, but if not, it could be delisted in about 2 weeks. Imzadi 1979 → 06:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gainesville Interchange. Dough 48 72 15:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
66.66.117.141 is inserting exit numbers into infoboxes using the |name#=
parameter of {{
jct}} and doing the same to junction lists. I've reverted 4 articles in Michigan, and moved the exit numbers into the notes column as appropriate, but be on the lookout. My Internet access will be probably limited for the next week or so. I wouldn't exactly call this person's actions vandalism yet, but I have left a note on the IP's talk page.
Imzadi
1979
→
23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I realize that the focus of the Project is to improve articles on specific U.S. roads and highways, but there seems to be a gap on Wikipedia when it comes to individuals essential to the history of those roads. I've noted in my research that many people important to the development of auto trails, U.S. numbered highways, and other important roads either have no article, or the article is no more than a stub. For example, Anton L. Westgard, pathfinder for the National Highways Association and AAA, was perhaps the most important individual in the layout of auto trails and later U.S. highways. He lead the National Park to Park Highway motorcade after pathfinding it, named the Midland Trail, criss-crossed the country numerous times, etc. He has no article at all. His brother W. O. L. Westgard was also an important pathfinder for AAA. Other important people such as John Hollis Bankhead, author of the first (1916) federal highway act, and for whom the Bankhead Highway was named, have very short articles indeed. - Parsa ( talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Kansas Turnpike#Merge proposal. Dough 48 72 20:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Florida State Road 9A#Proposed merger to Interstate 295 (Florida). – Dream out loud ( talk) 20:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new bot that can create and upload a full sequence of highway markers. I have already used it to complete Alberta's highways markers and I am looking for new projects. If you provide me a completed SVG template and which signs you are requesting, I will run the bot. At this point this bot only runs on Commons, and will only create "free" images. -- Svgalbertian ( talk) 22:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 337 (Florida) (3rd nomination) – Fredddie ™ 23:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia State Route 638 (Lee, Russell, Scott, Washington, and Wise Counties). Dough 48 72 04:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Arkansas technically has extremely few concurrencies. It has thousands of "sections". Basically whenever two highways meet, the more important one stays continuous, and the lesser route breaks into two sections, one on either side of the route. They never concur unless it is an official exception. This means that basically all of Arkansas' highway pages are inaccurate. Also, this is the case with every route in Arkansas (including U.S. Routes AND Interstates except I-30 which is top dog). What can be done about this? Also, this information is from the book: AHTD Annual Average Daily Traffic Estimate by County, April 2010. This discussion was moved after five days of inactivity at Talk:List of Arkansas state highways. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 15:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the new junction list in Maryland Route 272 includes mileposts for the termini of one-way pairs, it is the first such occurrence I have ever seen. Is it against USRD standard for one-way pair termini to be included, or should they be included in all junction lists where applicable? Dough 48 72 03:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal on WikiProject United States to task Xenobot with tagging and assessment of articles that fall into the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Please take a few moments to provide your comments about this proposal.
If you are interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject United States please add your name under the applicable section here. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Does this project cover roads, streets and highways or is there a limit in the scope of the project? -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed a move at Talk:Florida State Road 212 and would like some feedback. Thank you. – Dream out loud ( talk) 22:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 507 (Brevard County, Florida), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 503 (Brevard County, Florida), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 342 (Leon County, Florida). Imzadi 1979 → 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I feel as if one of the most difficult sources of information to find when writing road articles is junction milage. They're usually buried somewhere within the state DOT's website and take a lot of searching to find. Some state DOTs don't even provide this information and it can be even more frustrating to search for this information, only to find out it doesn't exist. I think a good idea would be to create a subpage of this project with a table of links for mileage/junction information for each state's DOT. I started a page already with five states at User:Dream out loud/DOTs. Any input on this idea? – Dream out loud ( talk) 20:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 17! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject United States, an outreach effort which aims to support development of United States related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!! |
-- Kumioko ( talk) 15:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my ignorance but I wanted to clarify a scope question about this project. I have found quite a few articles related to Laws, accidents, legal cases, people, etc that would seem to possibly fall into the scope of this project but it seems as though the project only covers the actualy road. Which is fine I just wanted to undeerstand. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The project's logo has been uploaded to Commons. There is a discussion on whether or not it should be deleted from Commons at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:USRD logo.svg. Please note, that the logo is still hosted locally on Wikipedia and this discussion will not affect that. Imzadi 1979 → 07:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Interstate Highway System articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the U.S. Highway system articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The template {{ Infobox road}} only allows for up to 4 discontinuous sections in the infobox. But I am working on the infobox for Florida State Road A1A, and that road has 9 discontinuous sections (it's broken into 3 at the moment, but there are actually 9). Should we look into adding more parameters to the infobox, or should we handle the infobox differently in this situation? – Dream out loud ( talk) 00:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 11#Primary State Highway 19 (Washington) -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you all think of replacing the current image on the USRD banner and the
navbar with the USRD logo on the newsletter? Basically:
→
–
Fredddie
™
05:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
--
Admrboltz (
talk)
03:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Doing...
How about this idea: replacing the current portal image (
, stored at
Template:Portal/Images/U.S. Roads) with the logo? I don't know if we want to extend the "rebranding" to the portal or not, but if we do, that's the template to change. –
T
M
F
10:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is an article that spells out very clearly why we should not overly rely on Google Maps (and similar mapping services) in the articles: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/google-maps-error-blamed-for-nicaraguan-invasion/ Dave ( talk) 15:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Since there are no concurrencies in Arkansas, how should mileages be displayed? Should the "implicit" mileage be included even though it is technically not really part of the route? It was mentioned here earlier to use the intuitive concurrencies in the route descriptions even if they are not signed in reality, but do we also do this for the mileages? Moved after inactivity from Talk:List of Arkansas state highways. Brandonrush Wooo pig sooie 15:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of special routes in Michigan. Dough 48 72 04:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I have started a list of examples on the Rockland County Scenario (RCS) subpage of WP:USRD so people unfamiliar with RCS can look at examples to better understand the process and implement it in their own work. When you have a chance, please add examples for your own areas, or suggest here in talk what kind of examples we should be providing to cover as many scenarios as possible. V C 21:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess I don't have much of a dog in this fight either. MI has so many of them that there should be a state-level list except for BUS US 2 in Ironwood. I can merge that over into the parent s-d article now that that article exists at a decent level. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, in some of my ACR's and GAN's I have been talking about legends in maps... I created something quickly over on commons, which can be added as a standardized legend based off the specs at WP:USRD/MTF. Thoughts, concerns, questions? -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:I-82_extension.png -- Admrboltz ( talk) 16:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{ WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. -- Kumioko ( talk) 04:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakersfield Freeway Network -- Rs chen 7754 02:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Could someone with AWB run it over U.S. Route 30 in Iowa for overlinking? This is the last issue brought up with the peer review that is holding me back from going to FAC. Thanks in advance. – Fredddie ™ 07:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/25#Category:Harrisburg area road stubs. Dough 48 72 02:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion about Texas having lists of highways in counties versus having templates of highways in counties. – Fredddie ™ 22:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Check out the discussion on the differences between TXSH and USRD article standards. -- Admrboltz ( talk) 03:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I first posted about the by-county categories for state highways in Florida in August, but nothing ever really came out of that discussion. In the time since then, I've found by-county categories for state highways in Arkansas as well. With the recent proliferation of "Transportation in Foo County, Bar" categories, the by-county state highway categories have become obsolete thanks to their uber-narrow scope. Since the (abbreviated) consensus of the last discussion was that these cats should be canned, I suppose I'm asking for assistance in setting up the CFD(s). At the moment, I don't have the time to set up a large umbrella nom nor tag 70 or so categories with a CFD notice. I'm willing to help in some form, but as of right now I can't bear the whole load. – T M F 07:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Bumping so this doesn't get archived by the bot. – T M F 08:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Bumped again. Guess I'm going to have to take a couple of days this week and get the ball rolling on this myself. – T M F 10:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I just hand coded Category:Transportation in New Mexico by county and associated sub cats, and populated them all... shows how slow it is at work :p -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember if this is the IP range that has been problematic in the past, but he's been damaging exit lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Garden_State_Parkway&diff=prev&oldid=400585485 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Interstate_520&diff=395378254&oldid=380779610 -- NE2 21:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:New Jersey Turnpike#Merger proposal. Dough 48 72 01:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I have submitted a proposal at the Village pump regarding tagging non article items in Wikipedia. Please take a moment and let me know what you think. -- Kumioko ( talk) 02:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Expressway System -- Admrboltz ( talk) 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Georgia State Route 515 - note the lack of spacing between the SR 372 shield and the I-575 text. -- NE2 22:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities on U.S. Route 66. Dough 48 72 03:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/13 for an upmerger dealing with the NY stub types. Imzadi 1979 → 11:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 308B (Putnam County, Florida) -- Admrboltz ( talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Your Majesties, thank you for all your hard work. This award is for the project itself. Over the next few days, copies of the award will be presented to Mitchazenia, NE2, Scott5114, Moabdave, Imzadi1979, Holderca1, Algorerhythms and Rschen7754. Well done! What a grand effort. When more people qualify to join please let me know. Warm regards – SMasters ( talk) 09:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Interstate 365 - has no reliable hits on Google and zero hits in terms of news sources. – T M F 22:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Please contribute to the discussions. Uncle G ( talk) 09:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 395#BC 395 Merger -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Kansas Turnpike for merge proposals of merging Kansas Turnpike Authority and Interstate 335 into the Kansas Turnpike article. Dough 48 72 01:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Merger discussion: Talk:Indian River Lagoon Scenic Highway#Merger -- Admrboltz ( talk) 04:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 158 (Leon County, Florida) - should we keep doing this since these now show up at WP:USRD/AA? -- Admrboltz ( talk) 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Merger discussion: Talk:U.S. Route 27#Apalachee Parkway merger -- Admrboltz ( talk) 05:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 441#Merger -- Admrboltz ( talk) 04:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
See WP:AAlerts/BUGS#Pluses instead of underscores -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Do templates, such as {{ jctexit}} or {{ jctint}} support consolidated city/counties such as Denver? If so, how do you code it? -- Admrboltz ( talk) 06:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
{{{indep_city}}}
=<city name> –
T
M
F
06:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 29 in Virginia#Merge proposal. Dough 48 72 16:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
See discussion here.Mitch32( Transportation Historian) 23:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Independence Boulevard (Charlotte) → U.S. Route 74#North Carolina, see Talk:U.S. Route 74#Independence Boulevard (Charlotte) merger -- Admrboltz ( talk) 03:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
See: Talk:Interstate 4#SR 400 merger re Florida State Road 400 → Interstate 4. -- Admrboltz ( talk) 04:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 8#Merge proposal. Dough 48 72 05:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
While nominally, our stub reduction drive didn't come anywhere close to our goal of eliminating 3000 stubs, I think most of us feel it was a success. Am I alone on this? While there is still some time left in December, I thought we should start hammering out our goals for 2011. I'm going to ask a few questions to try to get a good idea where the project stands. Just write a short comment after each question. By no means is this a binding poll. This will all end up in the next edition of the newsletter? If there are any other questions I should be asking, please add them! – Fredddie ™ 07:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's make this formal. There were two options that stuck out for a 2011 stub-removing goal – finish the original 3000 and a new goal of 2000. Which would you prefer? Just sign below. – Fredddie ™ 21:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (road junction lists)#Dashes and or emphasis in RJL -- Admrboltz ( talk) 03:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
See WT:USRD/SUB. -- Rs chen 7754 22:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Virginia State Route 311. V C 03:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Manette Bridge -- Admrboltz ( talk) 19:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Kilometre Zero#Merger. -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 95 in New York#Merge proposal. Dough 48 72 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 759 for discussion. – Fredddie ™ 21:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 11 in New York#Merge proposal and Talk:New York State Route 27#Prospect Expy merge proposal. Dough 48 72 05:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
-- Admrboltz ( talk) 04:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The current working practice of USRD is to demote inactive state highway WikiProjects to taskforces, where they remain indefinitely until activity resumes in that state, if at all. It has been proposed on off-wiki channels to delete some of the task forces that have remained inactive for years and redirect them to USRD. I thought I would bring the matter here for discussion. -- Rs chen 7754 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I would prefer keeping the task force pages that we have now to list USRD standards and article assessments specific to a certain state. In addition, I wouldn't be opposed to creating task force pages for states without a subproject or task force currently. Dough 48 72 03:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to pose two questions for the group: (1) Is there any harm in leaving the dormant task forces the way they are? and (2) What is the expected benefit of removing the inactive state pages? It seems the status quo has been fine, so I'm just wondering what is the impetus for this proposed change. -- LJ ↗ 18:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
For the record I think redirecting would be better than deleting, so the page histories remain intact. -- Rs chen 7754 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I was one of the editors (if not the only one) that originally tossed out this idea on IRC months ago. My logic was that these inactive task forces are often littered with outdated items, whether it be obsolete article standards or busted resource links. Additionally, since they're inactive, the talk pages aren't being used. Since we already have a resources page ( WP:USRD/RES) for states without projects and a standards page that already lays out a default article structure, I'm not seeing how the inactive task forces are of any use to anyone. About the only use I can think of is a set of custom standards to accommodate for some local quirk, but I doubt any of the states in question are developed enough to need a custom structure.
As has been said above, I think redirection is the way to go in the event someone wants to revive the projects. I would suggest redirecting both the project and talk pages to WP: and WT:USRD, respectively, so that someone looking for help with that state arrives at a place where they can get that help. – T M F 06:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems that most people are okay with doing this. Next proposal: I propose that we implement this in a way similar to how the demotion of projects are currently handled - with the template, and the 7 day discussion, and all. -- Rs chen 7754 06:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems like there's consensus; trying to avoid this section from being archived until I get time to implement. -- Rs chen 7754 23:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This may be an ill-conceived afterthought, but what if we folded all the task forces into regions? I'd propose using the four main census regions as a guide. The benefit would be to not bury the inactive states and give states that don't have any page somewhere to go. The current resource pages can be split among the four regions and turned into disambig pages.
I do not advocate forcing the current subprojects into the regional task forces, but they would have a place to go if they ever became inactive. We could possibly merge in subproject resources, but that can discussed later. – Fredddie ™ 23:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I was looking over a discussion, the open thread on Template talk:Infobox road to be exact, and WP:USRD/STDS was referenced. I was thinking it would be a good idea to annotate why our standards are what they are. I mean, what discussions/arguments/arbcoms led to where we are today. I think it would be useful for other roads projects to see how we got to where we are. This could be extended to any of our pages, but I was really thinking of the standards first. – Fredddie ™ 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I was going over the Capital Beltway article, and I noticed the shield for the exit at VA 90004. It's wrong. Circle shields in Virginia are for secondary routes; all routes in the 90000-series are primary routes, and so should have the Virginia highway shield. -- Tim Sabin ( talk) 21:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Back in December I nominated these for deletion on Commons due to their poor quality, inaccuracy, and redundancy to the newer SVG images.
The deletion requests were closed as keep with a statement that didn't reflect the reasoning to delete, and the administrator who did so refuses to acknowledge the actual problems with the images and the actual deletion rationale.
I'm not sure if its considered bad form if I renominate these myself, but maybe if a few editors commented on new deletion requests it might get the message across? -- Sable232 ( talk) 19:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
{{VVA|County xx.svg}} and {{Obsolete|County xx.svg}}
then nom for deletion. --
Admrboltz (
talk)
20:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Since they aren't implemented in AA yet:
-- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
For those interested: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Linking to a DAB that redirects from a DAB. Basically, two options are being presented: fold all designation-related dab pages into the list of numbered highways series of set index articles, or list all disambiguated designations on the set index articles and have dab pages for each ambiguous designation. Discussion is ongoing at the link above. – T M F 15:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
When is it appropriate to mention in a highway article that a story was set or filmed along a highway? This is a general question spurred from a specific one currently taking place in an article. There's a lot of grey area, that may make it impossible to have a universal rule. Here's some numbered cases:
I'd like at least some generic discussion on where is that line done. I know we can all list examples, but please only list more examples if they are as grey as the ones mentioned above. Dave ( talk) 01:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
According the comments made at FAC and reinforced with a message box on the documentation for {{ inflation}}, that template is using Consumer Price Index (CPI) to calculate its end result. Roads, as capital expenses, should be using a different inflationary adjustment technique. For the time being, I've commented out all of the inflationary adjustments in M-6 (Michigan highway) and I'm going to suggest that others using the template in their articles do the same on articles coming up for review. I'm going to post on the template's talk page, maybe they can update it with a parameter to give us better results in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 10:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
inflation|US|144000|1981|r=-3}}
to convert $144,000 in 1981 to 2011 values using CPI, we could have {{
inflation|US|144000|1981|r=-3|method=MW}}
to use the Measured Worth calculation method or {{
inflation|US|144000|1981|r=-3|method=GDP}}
to the relative share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) calculation method. If something similar is added to the template (and an corresponding update to the citation {{
inflation-fn}}), then I'll restore the inflationary adjustments. Now I just need to hope that this development does not derail an otherwise successful-looking FAC.
Imzadi
1979
→
23:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Now that WPUS is up and running and the US Wikipedian's collaboration is rebuilt, I wanted to focus on cleaning up and revamping Portal:United States. First, Per a comment on the talk page, I have added the US roads portal to the list of US related portals on the bottom of the portal main page.
As one of the most active US related WikiProjects I also wanted to ask if anyone would be interested in adding a selected article related to the US roads to the list of featured articles. If not perhaps you could suggest one and I will add it? The article should preferably be GA or higher quality or it may be B class if it is high or top importance. -- Kumioko ( talk) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Even with certain developments, the concept and the request are sound. I would like the project to nominated 4 articles we can add to this portal. My thoughts are:
These represent geographic diversity (Midwest, West, Northeast, South), diversity of classification (state, Interstate, US Highway, special route) and they all are Featured Articles. I welcome any substitutions that might be suggested, and I hope we can make the additions to the portal in a timely fashion. Imzadi 1979 → 23:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I have added a recommendation to the talk page of Portal:United States for Consideration. Since we have more than 200 US related projects, about 75 of which are active in some capacity, I would like to add a section to the portal to feature a project (I am trying to determine the interval but I was thinking random pick like the articles are). I believe this would draw interest to the projects, to the articles they support and even to the portal itself (at least from the members of that projet I hope). Does anyone have any comments, concerns or suggestions with regards to doing this? As one of the more active projects I was considering profiling US roads as one of the first along with NRHP and United States (not sure about the order yet) starting February 1st adding more after that. -- Kumioko ( talk) 21:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Nevada State Route 582#Merge proposal. Dough 48 72 05:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
What happened to listing "major intersections" in the infobox? Right now we just have south/west end and north/east end, which ends up looking a tad confusing. CL ( T · C) — 20:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought this was an appropriate place to ask this since Template talk:Cite news isn't really responsive.
I typed in the following text for a reference: <ref>{{cite news|title=Sand Creek Cleanup Shows Heart|date=September 13, 2004|newspaper=Denver Post|accessdate=February 1, 2011}}</ref> into Interstate 270 (Colorado). The reference appeared like this: "Sand Creek Cleanup Shows Heart". Denver Post. September 13, 2004. What happened to the accessdate? Did I write something wrong? -- P C B 00:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Virginia State Route 168#Merge proposal. Dough 48 72 03:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 1 in Massachusetts#Merge proposal. Dough 48 72 04:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I created a new map request form on WP:USRD/MTF/R. If you've used the Highway Route Marker Bot on Commons, it should be fairly similar. A couple additions I made were a color code for how long a request has sat. Under 60 days, it's green. Between 60 and 120 days, it's yellow. From 120 days to 1 year, it's red. After a year, it's black. The colors were arbitrary as were the lengths of time. The other addition was a template that tells what class the article is.
Right now the only downfall I can see is that it starts with second-level headings. I want to make sure it works before I make a request to change everything officially. – Fredddie ™ 03:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
If an existing U.S. Highway (or Interstate) has been shortened and no longer enters a state it once did, does the USRD banner on that highway's article still include those states? For example, U.S. 77 is tagged for Minnesota and South Dakota but no longer enters either state. I've seen other cases where the article isn't tagged for states it no longer enters. -- Sable232 ( talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The IP from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 16#More poor IP edits is back. See Special:Contributions/98.81.9.116. – T M F 05:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Latham Circle → Latham, New York. Discussion is at Talk:Latham, New York#merger?. – T M F 10:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
In my draft of the Article Interstate 49 in Missouri at User:Intelati/Sandbox/1, is the exit list fine or will that have to wait until 2012 when the new interstate opens?-- intelati talk 02:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
As part of splitting routes out of List of minor routes in Pennsylvania, I was interested in removing Pennsylvania Route 179 out of the list. Since it is a fairly short route and mutually related to New Jersey Route 179, I feel the best option is to merge the route with NJ 179. In doing so, should the title of the article remain New Jersey Route 179 for the longer route or become Route 179 (New Jersey – Pennsylvania) for a combined route? In addition, I am also asking for how the infobox for the combined article should appear. Dough 48 72 02:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion here to delete some rather redundant shields made by User:Route11 on Commons.Mitch32( Erie Railroad Information Hog) 01:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Portal:United States is a current featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. -- RichardF ( talk) 14:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I propose limiting ACR so that only Good Articles can be nominated. Are there objections? -- Rs chen 7754 06:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the consensus here is clear - and I don't anticipate it changing - I've made the change. – T M F 23:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a related change I'd like to toss out for some discussion. Since GAN and FAC have set criteria, and our A-Class articles now by definition will fall in between those levels, I'm wondering if we couldn't/shouldn't formulate a checklist of sorts for A-Class in our project. In other words, what are the general things that we agree an article must do or must have before A-Class is appropriately conferred. Such a list of criteria would allow potential nominators to double check before completing the nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 05:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I have another relevant question regarding ACR changes. Is ACR intending to be a peer review for articles heading to FA? Or is it just another class between FA and GA? If it is the latter, then there should definitely be more A-class articles than FA's. In that case, we might have to do a large GA search for A-worthy articles. -- P C B 00:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
There is an added gap, at least on my display, between the banner and the shield. – Fredddie ™ 01:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
line-height
property. –
T
M
F
05:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
From what I can tell, whatever caused it has been fixed. – Fredddie ™ 14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The pointer to this project from Talk:Transportation in Georgia (U.S. state) was changed by Freddie. Doesn't seem to be any discussion about this project being superceded here. Anyone know what is happening? The edit summary read "WP:Transport", the Project he was changing it to, but no explanation. Student7 ( talk) 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Once the article though ventures outside of the state highways, its scope exceeds that of USRD. In fact, USRD's parent, WP:HWY is a subproject of WP:Transport, meaning that project is the appropriate one for that article. Imzadi 1979 → 10:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Dough4872/GA by number, a contest encouraged to improve articles to GA quality. Dough 48 72 03:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I took another look at State Route 78 (Arizona – New Mexico) that New Mexico uses the name "state road", whereas ADOT uses "state route". The title of the article seems to have assumed the ADOT name. In addition, the infobox seems to say that it is New Mexico (and Arizona) Route 78, which is not an official name for either of them. How should this be resolved? -- P C B 04:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that you all have been following the recent debates about merging the sub-articles in here. Now, the problem is that the article is in a horrible mess right now. I think that it's going to take intervention from the USRD project to get this article back into some sort of shape; it's way too much for any one person to do, and certain users refuse to let anything be removed from the article.
Does anyone notice stuff that should be removed from the article that is irrelevant or excess quotes? For one, I think the archaeological dig stuff should go. -- Rs chen 7754 09:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
In light of the recent events at Maryland Route 200 I would like to propose an addendum banning subpages of state highway or state-detail articles, i.e. "Route description of...", "History of...", etc. -- Rs chen 7754 19:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems in the past few weeks an editor has created a few new ones and "revamped" others. (See Category:County roads in Minnesota.) The problem is that all of these lists have numerous entries simply stating "County Road xx is a road." County roads in St. Louis County, Minnesota, once quite nicely readable if incomplete, now lists roads from 1 through 999 (and I'm not sure all those really exist) and the vast majority have no information.
What's the proper way to deal with this? -- Sable232 ( talk) 03:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
We're down to about a week left, so please collect your final ideas together for portal content for the day. Unlike regular monthly updates, I would like to have the contenders for article, picture and DYKs at least picked by next Tuesday (3/29) so we can finalize the wording of the blurb, caption and hooks. Imzadi 1979 → 09:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm back. I'm finishing the upgrade of the exit list of Interstate 5 in California to use {{ Jctexit}}. However, how do I handle exits that straddle cities (like Exit 100)? - happy 5214 10:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
|location_special=
lets you input something like [[Irvine, California|]]–[[Tustin, California|]]
as a custom location. (There is a corresponding |county_special=
for county entries if a junction falls on a county line.) As the template says though, you need to supply the full wiki markup for either alternate parameter.
Imzadi 1979
→
11:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's something curious I've stumbled across. Apparently, the folks over at the Wikimedia spectrum of Wikiworld have created an experimental pilot of an Article Feedback Tool. A number of USRD articles have been included in their testing deployment by means of a hidden category, Category:Article Feedback Pilot, including:
The tool places a box at the bottom of the article allowing readers to assess on a five-point scale for elements of trustworthiness, objectivity, completeness, and quality of writing. The pilot has an FAQ here. The tool at present doesn't seem to provide any means to allow readers to add comments at this point. I'm not sure how particularly useful this will be. For instance, on the US 67 bannered routes article, only the Texas section is complete while all the routes in other states merely have headers as placeholders for now, so I don't see how this tool would tell anything any editor wouldn't already know. Perhaps they chose this particular page for the fact that it is incomplete for their testing and evaluation. Anyway, this looks interesting. Fortguy ( talk) 01:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion is here. -- Kinu t/ c 21:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please contribute to the discussion. -- Rs chen 7754 01:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
In order to reduce confusion, and to better reflect the project's scope, I'm proposing to rename the project from "WikiProject U.S. Roads" (USRD) to "WikiProject U.S. Highways" (USH) The subproject devoted to the United States Numbered Highway System would be referred to as "U.S. Routes" (USR). This would make clear the distinction between USH and USST (U.S. Streets). The USRD abbreviations would be supplemented by USH abbreviations in all cases except the portal. Imzadi 1979 → 10:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Support This has been a thinktank proposal for a while. I think it's been long enough since the USH designation was used. -- Rs chen 7754 19:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Support Fortguy ( talk) 01:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This has a picture-request. What exactly do you guys want? A picture of the "51"-sign? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Since there has been some tension in the past with some of my tagging I wanted to come and let you know that I have compiled a list of pages that s with US, U.S. American, United States or List of one of these and are lacking WikiProject banners.
Most of the ones that fall under your project are redirects so its not a huge problem. Some are not though. Before I start tagging them I wanted to ask you if you want me to tag them as redirects for US roads or for United States. I am perfectly ok either way but I think they should be tagged with at least one so that the page can be monitored for activity (commments, redirects for deletion, etc). Here are links to the pages I have compiled so far:
Please let me know if you have any questions. -- Kumioko ( talk) 03:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
After going through the list I think I have zeroed in on all the US roads related pages. here is a list of the ones that I think refer to an article in the US roads project. The list is rather long and as I mentioned before I think most are redirects but if someone could take a look and make sure this list looks pretty good I would appreciate it. There may be some that don't pertain to the project. Just for clarification the bot will detect if its a redirect/Disambiguation or not so I am not making assumptions but there might be a small amount of articles I missed as being for US roads. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- Kumioko ( talk) 18:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
{{USRD|state1=AL|state2=AK|...}}
? Some of the articles should be quite clear, but would you like us to go through the articles that don't have an obvious state? –
Fredddie
™
01:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I would ask whether the tagging of all these redirects is necessary. Kumioko indicated that the project has about 2544 redirects. What is probably not realized is that about 1050 of those are in the Wisconsin project alone. That's because someone went through and created talk pages and tags for each iteration of each highway on the state's redirect list. I don't necessarily think that tagging all of the "U.S. 71 (AR)", "U.S. Highway 71 (Arkansas)", "U.S. Route 71 (Arkansas)", "US 71 (AR)", "US Route 71 (Arkansas)", etc. pages as redirects is a particularly helpful exercise. My two cents... -- LJ ↗ 09:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
|appropriate state abbreviation=
=. Is there anything else I need to do? I will tag 20-30 to begin with so that you have a chance to check to make sure they are right before I process large numbers. Please let me know if you have any more comments or concerns. --
Kumioko (
talk)
01:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I made a request over at WP:USRD/MTFR, but I'll repeat it here. I need a map created to address a comment made at US 131's FAC. It needs to be a map of Grand Rapids, circa 1962. I can provide a scanned copy of the city insets via e-mail to anyone to help make the map. Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Should article about state departments of transportation exist within the USRD scope? Most of them also manage railroads, etc, not just roads. -- P C B 04:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
See WT:USRD/SUB. -- Rs chen 7754 05:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this is not the correct venue to alert your project, but Washington State Route 527 is in need of an update. The Washington State Legislature recently passed HB1520 [10] which removed a significant portion of SR 527 and turned it over to the City of Bothell. The page therefore needs to be updated. -- RoninBK T C 11:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I need a favor from someone that's good with GIS to make an update to an article. M-134 (Michigan highway) uses the Drummond Island Ferry to connect to Drummond Island. MDOT's Physical Reference Finder Application is great to give me roadway distances to the thousandth of a mile (about a 5-foot precision), but it doesn't track the route of the ferry. If someone can help me calculate the distance across the channel between the two docks, then I can update the article to include the true length of the highway. Any assistance is appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 07:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that it is common practice for junction lists to use the airport sign to symbolize an airport that is located off an exit of a road. There are sometimes other important destinations such as train stations that are signed on guide signs on freeways with either the MUTCD train station symbol or the logo of the railroads serving the station. For these instances, would it be appropriate for a train station sign to be included in the exit list? Dough 48 72 04:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I approve of using special symbols (airport, train station, ferry, etc.) in Junction lists if they are not overused. The use of the symbol should be based on reality in highway signage; this guideline might need to be unofficial, however, because such a basis borders on WP:OR. The Junction list entry must also wikilink to the article for the airport, train station, etc. I suggest the following guidelines for whether or not to use a symbol:
Wasn't there discussion some time ago about not including airport and similar icons in the junction lists at all? -- LJ ↗ 06:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Papago Freeway Tunnel. — P C B 15:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
What do all of you think of starting a task force for coordinating U.S. Route 66? Clearly, it's our most important and most viewed article, so we need to do it right. I'm thinking of a one-stop shop for brainstorming and sharing research, discussing goals and potential content forks, and a whole bunch of other stuff I can't think of at the moment. I'd ask around at local WPs to see if there are some roadgeeks-in-hiding, or just history buffs, who would be interested in helping. The article(s) can only get better from here. – Fredddie ™ 08:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I checked out the List of Interstate Highways in Michigan in response to your concern of possible template navbox clutter with 47 links. I'm well aware that this article list is already there (though not every Interstate list is made for each state on Wikipedia), but even so, if I make a template for Michigan there is a strong possibility that only the main Interstates would be linked. I didn't realize Michigan has a lot of business routes but even I think listing every link individually may clutter it up. I did have plans to edit the Template:Texas Interstate Highways to include these but only with the "(various)" tag since TX's business loops have a different letter prefix for each branch (ex.: 35-B, 35-D). I could link Business routes of Interstate 94 as " 94 (various)" to minimize the clutter issue. Hope this helps. Thank you. GETONERD84 ( talk) 16:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The auxiliary route navboxes though were developed to replace a lengthy "See also" section containing all of the various 3dIs and 3dUSs of a 2dI or 2dUS. Part of the problem with the "See also" section is that per MOS:LAYOUT, if a link is mentioned even once in the body of the article, it's not supposed to appear in that section. If the section is canned in favor of a navbox, we don't have to worry about checking links, and we get a consistent display of the 3dI or 3dUS links (assuming there are enough to warrant a navbox).
Personally, I prefer a streamlined approach with a minimal set of non-redundant navboxes at the bottom of the article. In some cases, that means none. Currently, the only ones in use in Michigan-specific articles are {{ Northern Michigan}} and the various 3dI/3dUS boxes. One thing to remember as well: too many navboxes with too many links distorts the "What links here" list for an article because any transclusion of the navbox will over a link, even if the article has no connection to the subject. (I'm talking about you, Northern Michigan template!) Imzadi 1979 → 23:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This is just a friendly reminder about the 2011 stub goal. Tonight, we hit our 800th stub removed since January 1! Great news, but we have fallen off pace. At the pace we're going, we will remove our 2011th stub on January 2, 2012. To be comfortably ahead of our pace, we need a good push like we had back in January. Thanks and happy de-stubbing! – Fredddie ™ 02:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI. postdlf ( talk) 21:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
WT:No original research#Are maps secondary_sources.3F. Imzadi 1979 → 16:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The Junction list on U.S. Route 301 in South Carolina needs to be reversed. Anybody care to tackle this? ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains they have to-do list banners just for railroad related articles. Who likes the idea of making to-do banners just for the roads? ---- DanTD ( talk) 18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I was just playing with an idea for the United States portal and I wanted to run it by you. Within the hundred or so US related portals we have essentially 4 main groups; Portal United States, Portal US Roads, Portal United States Government and Portal United States military. What I was thinking was to possibly tie these 4 main groups together, possibly something like Portal:United States/Sandbox so that a reader could in theory navigate from one to the other with relative ease. This would in essence tie together the core groupings where US roads is all the roads related stuff, United States is the general broad spectrum US related, Government is government related stuff and Military is military (American Civil War, the branches, etc). Of course there are multitudes of portals that relates to each potentially but I think this might be a good way to make it easier for our users to somewhat seemlessly traverse the information. Of course each project would still be responsible for maintaining the portal that realtes to them. The example given is just an example and because some of the portals already employ a tab system it might look a little different from portal to portal but the links could still be available allowing the users to navigate back and forth. Its definately just a consept at the moment but what do you think about this idea? -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the box with the stop sign is doing us any good, since WT:USRD doesn't receive as much traffic as it used to. Currently, people are posting on the pages in the box, and the discussion either gets ignored or moved right over here. Do we need this box anymore or can it be removed? -- Rs chen 7754 22:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Interstate 395 (Florida) – I-395 into FL 836. Mitch32( Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?) 04:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI: An IP editor has been editing a bunch of the state-detail articles on I-70, as well as I-40 in NM. On the I-70 in CO article, he added way too many junctions in the infobox, as well as changed order of shields (numerical order without regard to highway type). I reverted the Colorado article, but interested editors may want to check other I-70 articles to make sure the edits are not unreasonable. -- LJ ↗ 00:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Roadies!
I corresponded with the DOT and verified that all of their hazard symbols are public domain. There are about 40 of them. Wonder if there is someone interested in uploading them? See [11]. TCO ( talk) 00:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've started noticing these abbreviations, which are most unsatisfactory. Even some American readers will have to ponder what CO means. And I've seen CA for Canada and for California. Usually, the full state is in the target, but the info is reduced in the pipe. Tony (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
|states=
parameter, which lists the names for the three states in full. That location field is a 2010 addition to the infobox that didn't exist when that article. Please also note that using |country=USA
not |country=US
actually breaks the infobox because {{
infobox road}} uses the
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code for a county, not the alpha-2 code.
Imzadi 1979
→
17:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)So there doesn't appear to be any clear standard, but does appear ample precedent for using USPS codes in US related articles. Dave ( talk) 04:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
U.S. Route 491 is tentatively scheduled to be the featured article for July 4th. This is one of our older FA's and is frankly not up to modern FA standards. However, there is time to fix it, several USRD editors have already chipped in. Any assistance would be appreciated. Imzadi and Rschen have already fixed the stylistic issues, and I'm updating the article to replace the outdated info. Still to be done is the use of map sources which has since become controversial. Dave ( talk) 02:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This has been a thought in my mind since I saw Florida State Road 880 in person myself. FL 880 is a .4 of a mile state highway in Belle Glade, Florida. The route continues for 18 1/2 miles as a county road, clearly more notable than the SR that it is for a couple blocks. New Jersey and Florida both have a tendency to do this (NJ 64 & CR 571, NJ 13 & Ocean CR 632 in Jersey, and NJ 162 & Cape May CR 626 are good examples of the situation) where SR makes a portion of a CR which is definitely longer. Using other Florida examples such as Florida State Road 809, Florida State Road 807, where the CR is by far the better known road. Now it might not apply in the case of FL 809, which is pretty long, but CR 809 definitely goes further than FL 809 does.
My question at hand, should there be a consideration in WP:USRD/STDS to allow if the CR is by consensus the better title to merge the SR into a new CR article and cover it there? I think this would work in situations such as County Road 880 (Palm Beach County, Florida) instead of Florida State Road 880 or County Route 827 (Palm Beach County, Florida) instead of the decommissioned Florida State Road 827, where CR 827 is a more significant highway. I get the feeling people might disagree with me, but I'd like to hear other opinions on this. Mitch32( Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?) 20:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I was finally able to correct the direction for the route description to Florida State Road 19, although I really wanted to add more material there, like the concurrency with "Backwoods Trail" in Ocala National Forest. Let me know what you think of it before I eliminate the duplicate from my sandbox. ---- DanTD ( talk) 03:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to the important people of the world (like Kim Kardashian), the closure of the 405 next weekend is making the front page as the pending traffic jam from hell. Thought I'd share it. Even though its not exactly discussion, its pretty interesting. [12] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
We have a number of articles that where the road has, in the past, used a sequential exit numbering system and now uses mile-based exit numbering. At what point are the old exit numbers still notable enough to include? Never? 5 years? 10 years? – Fredddie ™ 21:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Do we have any articles where the old exit numbers would stay? – Fredddie ™ 22:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, after doing some on-IRC consultation with Fredddie ( talk · contribs), we've updated {{ jctint}} and its state-specific sub-templates. Now, the entire family of junction list templates will work for both at-grade highway junction lists and freeway exit lists. {{ Jctexit}} and {{ exittop}} have been merged into {{ jctint}} and {{ jcttop}} respectively using the same method {{ jctbridge}} and {{ jctco}} used.
To create an exit list, follow the same methods as creating a junction list using the templates, and append |exit
to the template name. In other words, call {{jcttop|exit
for the header and {{jctint|exit
for the individual entries, filling in the remaining details as needed. Previously, {{jctbridge|exit
and {{jctco|exit worked for use in exit lists, and the updated templates now follow the same scheme.
Note, if you're making table for a highway that has mixed at-grade and freeway segments, and the freeway segments have numbered exits, you need to append |exit
every time you use the templates or the table will have formatting errors.
At this time, there is no method that works to use templates for freeways that have old and new exit number columns. Based on the discussion above, most of the articles that have such a list will probably lose their old exit numbers columns in the near future. If there is a need though to allow such a thing, I have a few options under consideration to add that functionality to the existing templates. Imzadi 1979 → 00:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Pennsylvania Route 134#Organization. Dough 48 72 04:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I happened to see that M-185 (Michigan highway) had been translated into Russian. I clicked on the talk page there to see if attribution was given, and found this when I translated it to English. Imzadi 1979 → 07:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought that I'd mention it here for a wider audience. Currently, we have Routing of the Great River Road split from Great River Road. I'd like to propose that the former be merge into the latter, and any splitting that takes place follows the model of state-detail pages. In the end, we'd have Great River Road as the main page and Great River Road in Minnesota, Great River Road in in Wisconsin, Great River Road in Iowa, etc plus Great River Road in Ontario and Great River Road in Manitoba. (The two Canadian provinces could be merged into one with redirects.) Imzadi 1979 → 11:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
If you'll choose an appropriate venue for the discussion I'll move these comments to that venue. Dave ( talk) 14:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 15#File:MNOld31.png -- Sable232 ( talk) 00:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion regarding whether a list of legislators should be included in the article. -- Rs chen 7754 04:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Recently, I found out that Maryland is beginning to use new route markers for state business routes like the one shown. I uploaded markers for the state's 4 existing state business routes under the format "MD Route x Business.svg". Now I just need someone to update Infobox road to use the new markers. I tried doing it myself, and quickly realized it would be better to get someone more familiar with its coding. Thanks in advance! -Jeff (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal to modify WT:RJL to allow geotagging of highway articles in the junction lists, at specified important points along the route. Your input is welcome. -- Rs chen 7754 02:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
We have a number of articles in a few states ( SR-13 and SR-25 in Alabama, for example) where the majority of a route number is a secret designation of another highway, usually a US Highway, but there exists a standalone section where the secret route is signed. How should we handle these? My gut reaction is to only talk about the standalone section and direct readers to the main highway for the secret sections.
I'd like to codify the result of the discussion in WP:USRD/NT. – Fredddie ™ 02:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
... V C 17:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I was asking the Maine DOT today where I could find the definition of the various state routes, especially 178. The answer, unfortunately, was that it's not online. :-( He did tell me where 178 ran, though. We don't currently have an article, so I'm pasting it here in case someone wants to work with it.
State Route 178 begins in the city of Brewer, at the intersection of State and North Main Streets (North Main St. also carries St. Rte. 9 through that intersection). From that point, Rte. 178 proceeds northeastward along North Main St. (piggybacking with Rte. 9) through Brewer and into the town of Eddington. At the village of Eddington (milepoint 4.1 from beginning), Rte. 9 splits off and heads east towards Calais, while Rte. 178 continues northeastward along Riverside Drive into the town of Bradley. Rte. 178 continues along the eastern side of the Penobscot River (the road carries the name of Main St.) through the town of Bradley into the town of Milford. Route 178 (in Milford, the road carries the name of the Bradley Road) ends at its junction with U.S. Route 2, at milepoint 13.3.
Enjoy! -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
All of these various articles need to be cleaned up and revised. The system itself fell out of use in the 1930s, yet many of our articles on these routes imply that the system is still in use. New England Route 26's lead and infobox did until I just edited it. If any article titles for current designations are being redirected into the NER articles, that needs to stop. If that means we need to create articles for modern designations, so be it, but implying that NER 26 is an active designation is wrong. Imzadi 1979 → 22:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
User:NE2 has discovered issues with [14], because the text came from [15]. Not looking good.
I've already evaluated the question "What if pahighways.com copied from Wikipedia?" by looking at archive.org in 2008, and I found the exact same text.
Thought we should get some input before deciding what our next steps, if any, should be. -- Rs chen 7754 09:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
First column is the PA Route number checked. Second, if any direct copying from pahighways was observed.
Dave ( talk) 17:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I need to say something here. I have a major problem with the way we're treating this, the two mentioned by Dough (on Pennsylvania Route 41 and Pennsylvania Route 72) were done by IPs. The one NE2 reverted today is from a long time, now basically-retired, distinguished US Roads editor who has helped PA significantly. Sure he made a rookie mistake in 2007 and it went unnoticed, I thank NE2 for noticing it. I have a problem that we're nearly damaging the editor's record over one rookie mistake. Let's please move on before it gets worse.Mitch32( God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring) 05:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Once my edit request for {{ jctint}} is completed, another set of upgrades will be complete on the junction/exit list templates.
Now, if |old
is appended after a template's name (as the first unnamed parameter), the templates will generate an addition column for the old exit number along a freeway's exit list. The parameter for the the old exit in jctint is called... "old". {{
jcttop}} also has two new parameters, |old_ref=
and |unnum=
The first adds a reference to the old exit column of the table. The second adds a note, "All exits are unnumbered." above the table and switches the "Roads intersected" column title to "Destinations" to match other exit lists.
Imzadi 1979
→
22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Usage of old exit numbers in articles is up to consensus, but based on WT:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 17#Old/New exit numbers, I think it's fair to say that we decided to limit display of old numbers to a reasonable timeframe after the changeover, and remove them afterwards. Several states will be changing over in the coming years as the 2009 MUTCD is fully implemented. In addition, Interstate 69 in Indiana will be re-mileposted by INDOT once AASHTO approves the newest section of that Interstate in the state. Either way, it's easy to remove the old numbers from displaying in an article just by changing the "old" after the template name to "exit". Imzadi 1979 → 22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
There is now {{ jctgap}} to code a gap in a route in the junction list. Imzadi 1979 → 01:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
http://apps.transportation.ky.gov/DMI_Reports/Official_MP_RL_params.aspx
It goes county-by-county, so you have to do some addition, but it's better than nothing at all! – Fredddie ™ 16:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I was improving Missouri State Route 5, and I noticed that the Major junctions list in the info box was long. What should I include? Two digit US Routes and interstates? Or all US routes?-- intelati talk 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#A-class review. Dough 48 72 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Just so everyone is aware, a small, but major, change has been made to the junction list templates that will affect things going forward. Namely, if you have a junction that has a range of mileposts, you'll have to slightly change how the MPs are input in the future. Using the
M-6 exit list for an example, The US 131 interchange is along MPs 7.886–8.776. The template input for that is |mile= 7.886
and |mile2=8.776
. The template automatically formats it with the en dash and the line break.
If you're using {{
jctbridge}} for state line crossings, like in the
US 223 article, use the same formatting, like |mile=0.67
and |mile2=0.000
and add |line=something, anything like yes, y, etc
and it will insert the horizontal rule.
If you're working on an article with metric distances, use |km= |km2=
for the same purposes. Nothing appearance-wise has changed yet, and if you use the parameters the old way, nothing will break—for now.
The reason is that at some point in the future, it may be necessary to modify the templates to automatically generate a metric conversion in a second column. If the miles have non-numeric characters, the parser functions to generate the metric output will fail. We need to input MP ranges this way so that each number can be converted and not have the dash (you aren't still using a hyphen, are you?) get in the way. Also, if the articles are inputting kilometer measurements as miles, even if the table header says "km", the conversion will come out wrong. The idea is to future proof now, so that if the change is made, the templates can be updated and every article will change at once for us. (And before anyone says it, California will have to be a known exception to these plans because of their unique postmile system.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This was me thinking out loud on IRC earlier, but I thought I'd share it with those who weren't there. – Fredddie ™ 23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I've thought about how we can improve how our banner handles assessment. What I was thinking was to give the three sections a ratings system. We would add three parameters to the banner,
|RD=
,|Hist=
, and|RJL=
and we'd rate them each 0, 1, or 2. 0 for non-existent, 1 for present, 2 for really good/complete and the assessment would be based on the sum of the three values: 0-1=stub, 2-3=start 4-5=C 6=B. So, if you have an awesome and complete route description, but no history or RJL, it would be Start-class.
Obviously anything over a B would be changed by |class=
. This would, in effect, institute a B-class checklist for the project, but it would also mean a huge undertaking by us to get the entire project reassessed. Again. I do think it would be unwise to institute something like this at this time as it would scuttle the stub drive. Anyway, I'd like your thoughts on this. Again, I'm not proposing we do this at this time. –
Fredddie
™
23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
We have some room to add types to the banner. I'm thinking |type=DOT/Law/Govt
and |type=jct
. I'm kinda torn at whether there should be separate DOT and Law types or if they should be combined as Govt. These types would let us override the assessments, but they would also give us article quality statistics for these articles. I don't think it would be a bad idea to add these types anyway, and I'd probably also add |type=CR
to track county roads, but that's something else entirely. –
Fredddie
™
17:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Random implementation idea: perhaps we could code the logic somewhat like this (please excuse the psuedocode):
if(article is flagged as a non-active-route) use class parameter as supplied else if(class >= GA) use class parameter as supplied else if(sections are rated individually) use that to determine the class else if(class < GA) use class parameter as supplied categorize article in "Articles which have not been rated on a section-by-section basis" (or something less cumbersome)
This would mean we could go ahead and implement this without breaking the current assessment system while still flagging them for eventual later reassessment. New articles and reassessments could gradually drain the "have not been rated by-section" category until such time that an assessment audit is desired to be performed anyway. The category could perhaps be broken up by state as appropriate in case subprojects wish to audit/assess their articles at once. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
While browsing through User:Multichill/Free uploads/2011-10-16 (which is a list of all Commons-eligible files uploaded on the given date) I stumbled on some shields which are redundant to our established sets (and several of which bear MUTCD sign codes instead of the "standard" scheme). I'm about to head to bed so I can't deal with it right now, but maybe we should look into what's going on here and perhaps look at the uploader's other contribs to see if there's something we need to work on here? Maybe do some FFD? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Michigan State Trunkline Highway System could use addition project member participation. Unlike most ACRs that are normally combing through to tweak and clarify wording, verify image license/copyright status and such, this article is about the system as a whole, not one highway. We just don't have a "big three" formula for writing such an article at this time. Please look through and offer comments, since quite likely, this article will serve as some sort of template for similar articles in the other states. What needs to be added, expanded, summarized, etc? Is there anything in here that's too trivial? Imzadi 1979 → 02:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm setting a publication deadline for Halloween for the newsletter. If you have any updates for your state since the last newsletter went out in April, please add them to the newsroom soon. If the issue comes together faster, I may have it published sooner though. Imzadi 1979 → 22:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
FL 63 and redundancy to U.S. Route 27. Proposal at Talk:Florida State Road 63#Merge proposal.Mitch32( Never support those who think in the box) 22:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to turn off the hatnote so we don't have issues like the jct list in the above article with two hatnotes? -- Rs chen 7754 18:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Template:Infobox road small does not show up shields for Arkansas business routes on pages like Auxiliary routes of U.S. Route 71. They are in the form File:US 62B.svg in order to show the "B", maybe this is the issue? Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 22:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
|type=US |route= 71B
. You need to use |type=US |subtype=Bus |route= 71
.
Imzadi 1979
→
23:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC){{USRD essay}}
is up for deletion. --
Rs
chen
7754
20:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I've made significant improvements to North Spokane Corridor. While it doesn't have an exit list, I think we can make an exception for a highway that is far from complete. I was hoping for a reassessment to a better category that Start. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder, there are 50 days left in 2011 and we still have over 300 stubs to go to reach our goal. Our rate so far has been on average 5.4 stubs removed per day. If we want to meet our goal, our required pace is now 6.2 stubs per day, unless we knock out a bunch in one day. Keep up the great work! – Fredddie ™ 05:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Howdy, I have been working on a project to create a former roads page for Texas similar to the one California has, to help wittle down a chunk of the Texas state highway stubs. Here's what I put together [16]. It got kinda long (101 routes), but would take ~50 stubs out of the way. Can I get some feedback on the design/implementation of this page? Thanks. 25or6to4 ( talk) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The statistics are showing exactly 1,000 B-Class articles at this time. A quick glance at the upper-half line graph shows this is an historic moment on The Price Is Right a first in USRD project history. Kudos, everyone! —
Scott5114
↗
[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]
00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
There is an RfC that's been started about deprecating the portal namespace. I would suggest that USRD editors make an effort to add portal links to articles in the coming year, if not sooner. Part of the reasons that portals are underuse, I think, is that they lack visibility. IMHO, we should be linking to appropriate portals on every highway article. After all, P:USRD is a Featured Portal, so we should be showcasing it and giving it some visibility. As of right now we have:
Multiple portals can be inserted using {{ portal box}}, or you can do what I did with M-185 (Michigan highway) and use {{ portal-inline}}. Portal links belong in the See also section, if it exists, or you can include them at the top of another section after the body of the article. (I moved M-185's portal links to be inline in the See also section just because they squished the two-column references section too much.) They don't belong in External links sections because portal pages aren't external to the English Wikipedia. (Commons and the other sister projects, on the other hand, are separate sites and considered external to Wikipedia.)
Oh, and please remember to continue suggesting articles, photos and DYK hooks for P:USRD so that we can continue to update the portal every month (and again on April Fool's.) Imzadi 1979 → 21:46, 16 November 2011 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Would someone with AWB care to look at the following articles and remove each instance of {{ Jct}}?
The goal of this is to remove these pages from Category:Jct template transclusions with missing shields. — Fredddie ™ 18:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of streets along the former U.S. Highway 99 in Washington. Dough 48 72 01:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Another: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memorial Drive (Atlanta) – Fredddie ™ 06:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking for some input on an article I've spent the last week re-researching and rewriting in a sandbox. The article on the Capitol Loop has already been rated at A-Class through our ACR process. I'd like a few editors from the project to give the article a once over and review it on the article's talk page. If there are any copy editing suggestions that you have, just go ahead and make them to the article. Most of the History section was rewritten from the new research and expanded. In fact, none of the history relies on MDOT sources except the date the roadway was transferred to state control. (It's been a project from long ago to find the proper newspaper articles to re-cite this article to remove the press releases previously used to cite the history.) I've expanded the lead, updated the traffic counts and tweak the RD a bit as well. My goal is to take this article to FAC at some point, but I'd appreciate some feedback and copy editing first. Imzadi 1979 → 08:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:U.S. Roads project articles to be merged is full of merge proposals, some of which have gone stale due to inactivity. Comments on the proposals (at the proposal location for simplicity) would be appreciated. – T M F 17:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Unless a highway designation is a redirect to a one of the bridge-related articles that were tagged in the project, I untagged them this evening. My reasoning is simple: there's already a project on Bridges that specializes in these subjects. The mere fact that a bridge carries cars doesn't make it fall under the scope of a project devoted to state highways. (The fact that a road carries cars doesn't make it a signed state or county highway either, and we don't tag those articles.) Some bridges though are the entirety of a state highway designation, and those I left alone. Basically, I was following what kind of infobox would appear on the article. If a bridge infobox is more appropriate, it was untagged. Imzadi 1979 → 05:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:State highways in Florida has 69 subcategories, all of which are titled "State Roads in <county> County, Florida". To me, this seems like far too narrow a scope for a category. Thoughts? – T M F 21:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the distance columns in junction lists. Wikipedia_talk:Mosnum#Permitting_metric_distances_in_road_tables – Fredddie ™ 21:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see discussion at wp:mosnum about metric units. Lightmouse ( talk) 21:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
What does everybody think about there being a new type= for interchanges on {{ USRD}}? – Fredddie ™ 05:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
|type=I
or |type=US
. We still add |state=
to those articles as appropriate to tag their location. It would be helpful to have them classified separately, maybe as a "pseudo" task force so we can work on assessment and standards for them a bit more.
Imzadi
1979
→
01:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, certainly the situation in the US is better than Malaysia. [1], and most of the ones that do exist should, unlike Malaysia. That said, I"m sure we could come up with a few other article types and map them out first before implementing any, as TMF suggested on IRC. Imzadi 1979 → 02:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
junction
instead. (*Malaysia currently has its own interchange template, which in all likelihood will get further revamped and merged into the generic IRJ. Before that happens though, there should be an AfD of probably 75% of the current articles because they fail
WP:GNG. The transclusion count on IRJ may increase in the near future as a result. )
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farm to Market Road 752 has been opened. Comment there if you wish. Imzadi 1979 → 10:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 1555 (Leon County, Florida) – T M F 21:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Another deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 857 (Monongalia County, West Virginia). Dough 48 72 00:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The Maryland State Highway Administration has once again made changes that have caused hundreds of deadlinks in Wikipedia references. SHA has made the filenames for all Highway Location Reference files shorter and more consistent, as well as streamlined the interface on their website for accessing individual county HLRs: [2].
The new URLs are of the form www.marylandroads.com/Location/YEAR_COUNTY.pdf YEAR is the four-digit year in the range 1999 to 2009. COUNTY is the name of the county in all-caps. For instance, the URL for the 2009 Caroline County HLR is www.marylandroads.com/Location/2009_CAROLINE.pdf Note the following special cases:
The old URLs for 2000 through 2009 were of the form apps.roads.maryland.gov/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/YEAR_hlr_all/coCO.pdf YEAR is the four-digit year in the range 2000 to 2009. CO is the two-digit county code explained in the collapsed table below. For instance, the 2008 HLR for Anne Arundel County was apps.roads.maryland.gov/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/2008_hlr_all/co02.pdf
The old URLs for 1999 were of the form apps.roads.maryland.gov/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/Allint_99_hlr/coCO.pdf, where CO is the two-digit county code.
Maryland Two-Digit County Codes
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Anyway, this is another project that would probably best be done via AWB, so I would much appreciate someone or a group proficient with that utility go through all of the Maryland state highway articles and update the reference URLs. — Viridiscalculus ( talk) 23:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force#Townships and jurisdictions on regional maps. – T M F 00:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The wording in the former WP:IH regarding infobox junctions found here was not merged to the new standards. Is this deliberate? I've not been following all the recent discussions closely but I don't remember having this wording overturned. Also, now that a major cities box is gone, it is all the more a good reason to list junctions in major cities in the infobox. There might be a potential issue in Interstate 95 regarding this. -- Polaron | Talk 14:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Only major junctions go into the Interstate routebox. These would be junctions with other Interstate Highways and/or junctions located in or near the central cities of major metropolitan areas with other important highways such as turnpikes and U.S. routes. Listing of multiple junctions in the same location should be avoided if possible. If any routebox has over 10 junctions, then some of the junctions need to be removed.
Compare an old version around the time the text above was inserted to WP:IH, and a recent version implying that only Interstate highways ending in 5 or 0 can be included. Which one is more helpful to the reader? -- Polaron | Talk 23:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Similarly, some clueless editor is using a warped interpretation of the standards on I-99. See [3]. – T M F 15:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
See [4] and [5]. Too bad this situation probably doesn't warrant a checkuser...yet. – T M F 13:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
All indef'ed. Let me know if more pop up. -- Rs chen 7754 05:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see WT:USRD/A. -- Rs chen 7754 04:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
See [6]. In short, a user replaced the actual child routes with the routes that replaced them, and I reverted for one simple reason: those routes aren't related to the parent route (here US 66), the routes they replaced were. It's been changed and reverted twice in the last week, so I figured I'd bring the issue here. – T M F 15:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, here's a little background. I was looking at the leaderboard tonight and I saw that Florida has almost moved out of the bottom 15. I was shocked, too. That got me thinking of starting up a part of the project for collaborating to get a state out of the bottom 10. Then I remembered AID.
WP:USRD/AID, if you recall, was the early incarnation of project collaboration which intended to get selected articles up to featured status. I think Ridge Route is the only article which AID worked on that became a FA; correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it was a direct result of AID.
Anyway, I'd like us, as a project, to select the state at the bottom of the leaderboard (currently Georgia) and spend 2-3 months destubbing and generally improving the whole lot of articles. The first week or so would be dedicated to finding reliable sources, to proposing ways to handle each state's special cases, to figuring out which articles needed the most attention first, and to setting goals to measure the success of the drive. After the first week, we can really get down to business improving articles.
The ultimate goal is to improve the encyclopedia, and I think this can work if we don't try to rush things. – Fredddie ™ 03:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm thinking it's a great idea to start with identifying sources for different states' highway systems. Creating those source directories will benefit current and future editors, and the whole process should help supplement the stub-reduction drive as a whole. Imzadi 1979 → 03:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I have written a program designed to convert hardcoded RJL table syntax into RJL template syntax! The first version is at http://www.rschen7754.com/programs.htm. The program is in the alpha stages but is being developed. -- Rs chen 7754 19:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything we can do about this? I've tried to warn the user quite a few times, to no avail. -- Rs chen 7754 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
See Utah State Route 79. What is the purpose of this? There should be a discussion somewhere that decided to implement this... can someone link me over to that? CL ( T · C) — 16:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
[9]. -- Rs chen 7754 17:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The following items have open nominations:
Please comment or review these items if you're interested. Imzadi 1979 → 00:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Ohio State Route 814#Merge proposal – T M F 07:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
More: Talk:James River Freeway#Merge proposal, Talk:Mount Hood Highway#Merge proposal – T M F 17:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York – Chicago Toll Road system. Imzadi 1979 → 20:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Marine 69-71#Roads Portal Links -- Rs chen 7754 20:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Tony, can you check out this message in my Talk. I am better at actual articles, and had been using whatever template was there already, and just expanded the articles or copied the See also portal part over to new road articles. Believe Quazaa may have added portal info also. Anyway, I will leave these decisions to you and the other admins. Can you answer this user yourself instead? I'll use whatever template you guys decide. Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 22:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE: Uff,,, looks like someone from the US Roads project went in there and changed them ALL to point to US Roads...
I don't get it, what is the difference anyway? Will we get better treatment (what ever that might mean) with the US Roads project people than with the global Roads project people? Or, to start with, is there such thing as a "global roads project people" if we are talking about portals ??? Seems this is just a matter of pointing to one portal vs the other portal...why would anybody care? what diff does it make? and for that matter, why not just point to BOTH portals, the "global" roads portal and the US roads portal as well and live happily ever after? Again I don't understand half the technical/wiki-reasoning stuff behind this, but seems to me there must be a significant reason and difference if this user TwinsMetsFan bothered him/herself enough to run a script to change them all. Thanks mentor,
Mercy11 (
talk)
23:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Highways Authority budget for road constructionthis fiscal year:
Mejoras Permanentes Fondo de Mejoras Públicas 0 Fondos Federales 116,733 Otros Ingresos 0 Préstamos y Emisiones de Bonos 38,119 Fondos Federales ARRA 63,055 Subtotal, Mejoras Permanentes 217,907
Federal funds ($116,733,000 in regular appropriations and $63,055,000 in special ARRA funds) represent over 80% of the total investment of $218 million. Pr4ever ( talk) 12:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
IF THE ARGUMENT IS HAD that the PR road articles should have the US Roads portal link using as the basis the argument of (i.e., "BECAUSE OF") Puerto Rico's receiving of federal funding for roads, then (for the benefit of complying with the NPOV policy) we must also allow for the argument that Puerto Rico sends more money into the U.S Treasury than it receives back via all US programs combined (including highway construction and maintenance funding)... My point is, both these arguments (plus all the others taht will inevitably follow) will fill hundreds of Talk pages and lead nowhere.
I proposed we stay away from political arguments while being sensitive to the underlying political views of all editors so we can move the work forward. Unfortunately the US Roads project people may not be as tuned to the political environment currently brewing in (and out of) Puerto Rico; so let's just say they innocently messed up.
I don't think anyone will get pumped up if we said the PR belongs to the world, but check out editors' reactions if we stated that PR belongs to the US (Note: I am not stating this is a fact or not a fact; I am simply stating it raises up the "guard" in editors)... This is why I propose the PR highway articles show (for those of you new to this: "as those articles always showed before"), ONLY the World Roads portal link. To include the US portal is likely to introduce an underlying political view that would be detrimental to moving forward with the project.
As for PR wikiproject's interaction with the US Roads group,,, that wouldn't be affected a bit: the PR road articles will continue to include the "This roads-related article is within the scope of the US Roads Wikipedia project" banner in the discussion page, and the articles would continue to be improved according to their well-documented standards.
If we were to arrive at a consensus on this, seems to me any decision, vote, preference, etc, should then be passed by the (very helpful) folks at the US Roads project to ensure we also get their views - if they have any further views to proffer - and from that point forward a final Resolution to the matter could be tendered by the PR Wikiproject group. Just my opinion on how this could be handled.
I vote the US Roads Portal NOT be included in the PR roads articles.
My name is
Mercy11 (
talk)
15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC) and I approve this message.
*For the first time ever, I find myself in disagreement with Mercy11 (just his vote, there are valid points above). Bottom line, I think that for the benefit of the articles, inclusion in the US Roads Portal will actually be more beneficial than controversial. It's just a portal link in the "See Also" section and IMO does not conotate any political overtones (even the portal image seems a little mundane..No offense to US Roads). Now as for the Funding argument, whether they offer, or we accept- we give, they take; I don't think the Roads care. And IMO, the articles about the roads should not either.
I Vote for Inclusion of both portals. Should this vote be moved to
WPPR? (sorry Tony!)
QuAz
GaA
16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
All of this discussion about fricking portal links?! Really? Just delete the damn things if they're so contentious, it's not like it's a necessary thing to have! — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
YES, imo, the U.S. Roads portal should be linked to from PR highway articles. This is my vote. And this represents my new conviction that doing this will be beneficial to both projects. (When I figure out how to cross-out my earlier "NO" vote, I will do it).
Mercy11 (
talk)
02:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Beating a dead horse here, however, now that List of county routes in Suffolk County, New York (1–25) exists. I have gone around and finished proposing merges of County Route 9, County Route 10, County Route 11, County Route 13, County Route 14, County Route 16, County Route 17, County Route 19, and County Route 21's articles. The merging of these articles has been a long debate and I think using the Rockland County Scenario, we can put this long heated discussion to rest.Mitch32( Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.) 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
In New York, different incarnations of route numbers are covered in separate articles. Thus, I don't envision CR 104 being merged into NY 113 anytime soon. The only two plausible scenarios is to 1) merge CR 104 into the RCS list whenever it's made or 2) rename the CR 104 article for the former state route. – T M F 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways numbered 500 – T M F 15:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices from the project and reassigned it to WikiProject Transport because I believe it is not within the scope and expertise of the project, but I was reverted, so I pose it here for a consensus decision. The project's scope is "articles relating to roadways of national or regional significance in the United States." The infrastructure of the project, including its assessment scale, is designed around articles about the roadways themselves. Looking at the articles within the project, I couldn't readily identify others on the subject of regulation. If this article were included, there are other similar articles concerning government agencies and transportation regulations this would be within that redefined scope. -- Bsherr ( talk) 15:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Although I made the nomination, the credit really goes to the whole project for creating and finding content for the articles, nominating features and ultimately maintaining the Portal. So thank you to everyone, you deserve pats on your backs for helping create a Featured Portal. Imzadi 1979 → 19:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roads in Maryland#Route Lists: Former Maryland State Highways Dough 48 72 20:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road construction in Houston, Texas -- Rs chen 7754 03:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why Central Texas Turnpike System requires a separate article from Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority which builds and maintains the tollways in that system. Fortguy ( talk) 17:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Dream out loud has nominated Pulaski Skyway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JJ98 ( Talk) 07:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This IP, 66.66.117.141 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), has been inserting county roads into pre-existing instances of {{ Jct}}. It's more annoying than troublesome, but it's made Category:Jct template transclusions with missing shields light up like a Christmas tree. Just another thing to keep an eye on. – Fredddie ™ 02:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've not seen a road article that had a more contentious tenure on the front page then our recent experience with Interstate 15 in Arizona. I suspect this is just a symptom the amount of article rot from the time of FAC review and the time featured on the page (this is one of our older FA's). If you compare today's version from 3 days ago, the article is substantially different. However, I think some good things have come out of this, that merit some wider discussion:
Thoughts please? Dave ( talk) 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone be against automatically sending (after a time period we determine) older Featured Articles to ACR? It could be a safeguard against article rot. I'm not proposing a full-on FAR, but ACR could help iron out the kinks that emerge. – Fredddie ™ 01:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the U.S. road transport articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It's the 20th of the month, and we only have 10 days left. We could use some DYK hooks for the portal for October. They can be anything that has run on the Wikipedia Main Page, or stuff that might have been nominated, if only the article met WP:DYK's requirements. Our portal doesn't require recent article creation, or specific amounts of expansion. All that's really needed is a catchy hook that's cited in the article. Any takers? Place your nominations here. Imzadi 1979 → 07:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
See here for details. Imzadi 1979 → 03:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The article has moved from the first stage to the second. It is now up for removal as a Featured Article, instead of just being reviewed. The areas of concern are: "referencing, comprehensiveness, updatedness, lead, formatting". If anyone is in a position to help clear up those concerns, the article could be kept, but if not, it could be delisted in about 2 weeks. Imzadi 1979 → 06:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gainesville Interchange. Dough 48 72 15:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
66.66.117.141 is inserting exit numbers into infoboxes using the |name#=
parameter of {{
jct}} and doing the same to junction lists. I've reverted 4 articles in Michigan, and moved the exit numbers into the notes column as appropriate, but be on the lookout. My Internet access will be probably limited for the next week or so. I wouldn't exactly call this person's actions vandalism yet, but I have left a note on the IP's talk page.
Imzadi
1979
→
23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I realize that the focus of the Project is to improve articles on specific U.S. roads and highways, but there seems to be a gap on Wikipedia when it comes to individuals essential to the history of those roads. I've noted in my research that many people important to the development of auto trails, U.S. numbered highways, and other important roads either have no article, or the article is no more than a stub. For example, Anton L. Westgard, pathfinder for the National Highways Association and AAA, was perhaps the most important individual in the layout of auto trails and later U.S. highways. He lead the National Park to Park Highway motorcade after pathfinding it, named the Midland Trail, criss-crossed the country numerous times, etc. He has no article at all. His brother W. O. L. Westgard was also an important pathfinder for AAA. Other important people such as John Hollis Bankhead, author of the first (1916) federal highway act, and for whom the Bankhead Highway was named, have very short articles indeed. - Parsa ( talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Kansas Turnpike#Merge proposal. Dough 48 72 20:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Florida State Road 9A#Proposed merger to Interstate 295 (Florida). – Dream out loud ( talk) 20:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new bot that can create and upload a full sequence of highway markers. I have already used it to complete Alberta's highways markers and I am looking for new projects. If you provide me a completed SVG template and which signs you are requesting, I will run the bot. At this point this bot only runs on Commons, and will only create "free" images. -- Svgalbertian ( talk) 22:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 337 (Florida) (3rd nomination) – Fredddie ™ 23:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia State Route 638 (Lee, Russell, Scott, Washington, and Wise Counties). Dough 48 72 04:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Arkansas technically has extremely few concurrencies. It has thousands of "sections". Basically whenever two highways meet, the more important one stays continuous, and the lesser route breaks into two sections, one on either side of the route. They never concur unless it is an official exception. This means that basically all of Arkansas' highway pages are inaccurate. Also, this is the case with every route in Arkansas (including U.S. Routes AND Interstates except I-30 which is top dog). What can be done about this? Also, this information is from the book: AHTD Annual Average Daily Traffic Estimate by County, April 2010. This discussion was moved after five days of inactivity at Talk:List of Arkansas state highways. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 15:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the new junction list in Maryland Route 272 includes mileposts for the termini of one-way pairs, it is the first such occurrence I have ever seen. Is it against USRD standard for one-way pair termini to be included, or should they be included in all junction lists where applicable? Dough 48 72 03:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal on WikiProject United States to task Xenobot with tagging and assessment of articles that fall into the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Please take a few moments to provide your comments about this proposal.
If you are interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject United States please add your name under the applicable section here. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Does this project cover roads, streets and highways or is there a limit in the scope of the project? -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed a move at Talk:Florida State Road 212 and would like some feedback. Thank you. – Dream out loud ( talk) 22:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 507 (Brevard County, Florida), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 503 (Brevard County, Florida), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 342 (Leon County, Florida). Imzadi 1979 → 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I feel as if one of the most difficult sources of information to find when writing road articles is junction milage. They're usually buried somewhere within the state DOT's website and take a lot of searching to find. Some state DOTs don't even provide this information and it can be even more frustrating to search for this information, only to find out it doesn't exist. I think a good idea would be to create a subpage of this project with a table of links for mileage/junction information for each state's DOT. I started a page already with five states at User:Dream out loud/DOTs. Any input on this idea? – Dream out loud ( talk) 20:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 17! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject United States, an outreach effort which aims to support development of United States related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!! |
-- Kumioko ( talk) 15:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my ignorance but I wanted to clarify a scope question about this project. I have found quite a few articles related to Laws, accidents, legal cases, people, etc that would seem to possibly fall into the scope of this project but it seems as though the project only covers the actualy road. Which is fine I just wanted to undeerstand. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The project's logo has been uploaded to Commons. There is a discussion on whether or not it should be deleted from Commons at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:USRD logo.svg. Please note, that the logo is still hosted locally on Wikipedia and this discussion will not affect that. Imzadi 1979 → 07:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Interstate Highway System articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the U.S. Highway system articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The template {{ Infobox road}} only allows for up to 4 discontinuous sections in the infobox. But I am working on the infobox for Florida State Road A1A, and that road has 9 discontinuous sections (it's broken into 3 at the moment, but there are actually 9). Should we look into adding more parameters to the infobox, or should we handle the infobox differently in this situation? – Dream out loud ( talk) 00:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 11#Primary State Highway 19 (Washington) -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you all think of replacing the current image on the USRD banner and the
navbar with the USRD logo on the newsletter? Basically:
→
–
Fredddie
™
05:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
--
Admrboltz (
talk)
03:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Doing...
How about this idea: replacing the current portal image (
, stored at
Template:Portal/Images/U.S. Roads) with the logo? I don't know if we want to extend the "rebranding" to the portal or not, but if we do, that's the template to change. –
T
M
F
10:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is an article that spells out very clearly why we should not overly rely on Google Maps (and similar mapping services) in the articles: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/google-maps-error-blamed-for-nicaraguan-invasion/ Dave ( talk) 15:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Since there are no concurrencies in Arkansas, how should mileages be displayed? Should the "implicit" mileage be included even though it is technically not really part of the route? It was mentioned here earlier to use the intuitive concurrencies in the route descriptions even if they are not signed in reality, but do we also do this for the mileages? Moved after inactivity from Talk:List of Arkansas state highways. Brandonrush Wooo pig sooie 15:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of special routes in Michigan. Dough 48 72 04:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I have started a list of examples on the Rockland County Scenario (RCS) subpage of WP:USRD so people unfamiliar with RCS can look at examples to better understand the process and implement it in their own work. When you have a chance, please add examples for your own areas, or suggest here in talk what kind of examples we should be providing to cover as many scenarios as possible. V C 21:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess I don't have much of a dog in this fight either. MI has so many of them that there should be a state-level list except for BUS US 2 in Ironwood. I can merge that over into the parent s-d article now that that article exists at a decent level. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, in some of my ACR's and GAN's I have been talking about legends in maps... I created something quickly over on commons, which can be added as a standardized legend based off the specs at WP:USRD/MTF. Thoughts, concerns, questions? -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:I-82_extension.png -- Admrboltz ( talk) 16:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{ WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. -- Kumioko ( talk) 04:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakersfield Freeway Network -- Rs chen 7754 02:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Could someone with AWB run it over U.S. Route 30 in Iowa for overlinking? This is the last issue brought up with the peer review that is holding me back from going to FAC. Thanks in advance. – Fredddie ™ 07:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/25#Category:Harrisburg area road stubs. Dough 48 72 02:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion about Texas having lists of highways in counties versus having templates of highways in counties. – Fredddie ™ 22:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Check out the discussion on the differences between TXSH and USRD article standards. -- Admrboltz ( talk) 03:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I first posted about the by-county categories for state highways in Florida in August, but nothing ever really came out of that discussion. In the time since then, I've found by-county categories for state highways in Arkansas as well. With the recent proliferation of "Transportation in Foo County, Bar" categories, the by-county state highway categories have become obsolete thanks to their uber-narrow scope. Since the (abbreviated) consensus of the last discussion was that these cats should be canned, I suppose I'm asking for assistance in setting up the CFD(s). At the moment, I don't have the time to set up a large umbrella nom nor tag 70 or so categories with a CFD notice. I'm willing to help in some form, but as of right now I can't bear the whole load. – T M F 07:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Bumping so this doesn't get archived by the bot. – T M F 08:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Bumped again. Guess I'm going to have to take a couple of days this week and get the ball rolling on this myself. – T M F 10:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I just hand coded Category:Transportation in New Mexico by county and associated sub cats, and populated them all... shows how slow it is at work :p -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember if this is the IP range that has been problematic in the past, but he's been damaging exit lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Garden_State_Parkway&diff=prev&oldid=400585485 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Interstate_520&diff=395378254&oldid=380779610 -- NE2 21:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:New Jersey Turnpike#Merger proposal. Dough 48 72 01:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I have submitted a proposal at the Village pump regarding tagging non article items in Wikipedia. Please take a moment and let me know what you think. -- Kumioko ( talk) 02:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Expressway System -- Admrboltz ( talk) 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Georgia State Route 515 - note the lack of spacing between the SR 372 shield and the I-575 text. -- NE2 22:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities on U.S. Route 66. Dough 48 72 03:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/13 for an upmerger dealing with the NY stub types. Imzadi 1979 → 11:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 308B (Putnam County, Florida) -- Admrboltz ( talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Your Majesties, thank you for all your hard work. This award is for the project itself. Over the next few days, copies of the award will be presented to Mitchazenia, NE2, Scott5114, Moabdave, Imzadi1979, Holderca1, Algorerhythms and Rschen7754. Well done! What a grand effort. When more people qualify to join please let me know. Warm regards – SMasters ( talk) 09:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Interstate 365 - has no reliable hits on Google and zero hits in terms of news sources. – T M F 22:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Please contribute to the discussions. Uncle G ( talk) 09:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 395#BC 395 Merger -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Kansas Turnpike for merge proposals of merging Kansas Turnpike Authority and Interstate 335 into the Kansas Turnpike article. Dough 48 72 01:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Merger discussion: Talk:Indian River Lagoon Scenic Highway#Merger -- Admrboltz ( talk) 04:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 158 (Leon County, Florida) - should we keep doing this since these now show up at WP:USRD/AA? -- Admrboltz ( talk) 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Merger discussion: Talk:U.S. Route 27#Apalachee Parkway merger -- Admrboltz ( talk) 05:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 441#Merger -- Admrboltz ( talk) 04:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
See WP:AAlerts/BUGS#Pluses instead of underscores -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Do templates, such as {{ jctexit}} or {{ jctint}} support consolidated city/counties such as Denver? If so, how do you code it? -- Admrboltz ( talk) 06:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
{{{indep_city}}}
=<city name> –
T
M
F
06:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 29 in Virginia#Merge proposal. Dough 48 72 16:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
See discussion here.Mitch32( Transportation Historian) 23:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Independence Boulevard (Charlotte) → U.S. Route 74#North Carolina, see Talk:U.S. Route 74#Independence Boulevard (Charlotte) merger -- Admrboltz ( talk) 03:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
See: Talk:Interstate 4#SR 400 merger re Florida State Road 400 → Interstate 4. -- Admrboltz ( talk) 04:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 8#Merge proposal. Dough 48 72 05:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
While nominally, our stub reduction drive didn't come anywhere close to our goal of eliminating 3000 stubs, I think most of us feel it was a success. Am I alone on this? While there is still some time left in December, I thought we should start hammering out our goals for 2011. I'm going to ask a few questions to try to get a good idea where the project stands. Just write a short comment after each question. By no means is this a binding poll. This will all end up in the next edition of the newsletter? If there are any other questions I should be asking, please add them! – Fredddie ™ 07:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's make this formal. There were two options that stuck out for a 2011 stub-removing goal – finish the original 3000 and a new goal of 2000. Which would you prefer? Just sign below. – Fredddie ™ 21:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (road junction lists)#Dashes and or emphasis in RJL -- Admrboltz ( talk) 03:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
See WT:USRD/SUB. -- Rs chen 7754 22:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Virginia State Route 311. V C 03:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Manette Bridge -- Admrboltz ( talk) 19:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Kilometre Zero#Merger. -- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 95 in New York#Merge proposal. Dough 48 72 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 759 for discussion. – Fredddie ™ 21:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 11 in New York#Merge proposal and Talk:New York State Route 27#Prospect Expy merge proposal. Dough 48 72 05:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
-- Admrboltz ( talk) 04:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The current working practice of USRD is to demote inactive state highway WikiProjects to taskforces, where they remain indefinitely until activity resumes in that state, if at all. It has been proposed on off-wiki channels to delete some of the task forces that have remained inactive for years and redirect them to USRD. I thought I would bring the matter here for discussion. -- Rs chen 7754 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I would prefer keeping the task force pages that we have now to list USRD standards and article assessments specific to a certain state. In addition, I wouldn't be opposed to creating task force pages for states without a subproject or task force currently. Dough 48 72 03:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to pose two questions for the group: (1) Is there any harm in leaving the dormant task forces the way they are? and (2) What is the expected benefit of removing the inactive state pages? It seems the status quo has been fine, so I'm just wondering what is the impetus for this proposed change. -- LJ ↗ 18:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
For the record I think redirecting would be better than deleting, so the page histories remain intact. -- Rs chen 7754 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I was one of the editors (if not the only one) that originally tossed out this idea on IRC months ago. My logic was that these inactive task forces are often littered with outdated items, whether it be obsolete article standards or busted resource links. Additionally, since they're inactive, the talk pages aren't being used. Since we already have a resources page ( WP:USRD/RES) for states without projects and a standards page that already lays out a default article structure, I'm not seeing how the inactive task forces are of any use to anyone. About the only use I can think of is a set of custom standards to accommodate for some local quirk, but I doubt any of the states in question are developed enough to need a custom structure.
As has been said above, I think redirection is the way to go in the event someone wants to revive the projects. I would suggest redirecting both the project and talk pages to WP: and WT:USRD, respectively, so that someone looking for help with that state arrives at a place where they can get that help. – T M F 06:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems that most people are okay with doing this. Next proposal: I propose that we implement this in a way similar to how the demotion of projects are currently handled - with the template, and the 7 day discussion, and all. -- Rs chen 7754 06:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems like there's consensus; trying to avoid this section from being archived until I get time to implement. -- Rs chen 7754 23:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This may be an ill-conceived afterthought, but what if we folded all the task forces into regions? I'd propose using the four main census regions as a guide. The benefit would be to not bury the inactive states and give states that don't have any page somewhere to go. The current resource pages can be split among the four regions and turned into disambig pages.
I do not advocate forcing the current subprojects into the regional task forces, but they would have a place to go if they ever became inactive. We could possibly merge in subproject resources, but that can discussed later. – Fredddie ™ 23:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I was looking over a discussion, the open thread on Template talk:Infobox road to be exact, and WP:USRD/STDS was referenced. I was thinking it would be a good idea to annotate why our standards are what they are. I mean, what discussions/arguments/arbcoms led to where we are today. I think it would be useful for other roads projects to see how we got to where we are. This could be extended to any of our pages, but I was really thinking of the standards first. – Fredddie ™ 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I was going over the Capital Beltway article, and I noticed the shield for the exit at VA 90004. It's wrong. Circle shields in Virginia are for secondary routes; all routes in the 90000-series are primary routes, and so should have the Virginia highway shield. -- Tim Sabin ( talk) 21:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Back in December I nominated these for deletion on Commons due to their poor quality, inaccuracy, and redundancy to the newer SVG images.
The deletion requests were closed as keep with a statement that didn't reflect the reasoning to delete, and the administrator who did so refuses to acknowledge the actual problems with the images and the actual deletion rationale.
I'm not sure if its considered bad form if I renominate these myself, but maybe if a few editors commented on new deletion requests it might get the message across? -- Sable232 ( talk) 19:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
{{VVA|County xx.svg}} and {{Obsolete|County xx.svg}}
then nom for deletion. --
Admrboltz (
talk)
20:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Since they aren't implemented in AA yet:
-- Admrboltz ( talk) 23:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
For those interested: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Linking to a DAB that redirects from a DAB. Basically, two options are being presented: fold all designation-related dab pages into the list of numbered highways series of set index articles, or list all disambiguated designations on the set index articles and have dab pages for each ambiguous designation. Discussion is ongoing at the link above. – T M F 15:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
When is it appropriate to mention in a highway article that a story was set or filmed along a highway? This is a general question spurred from a specific one currently taking place in an article. There's a lot of grey area, that may make it impossible to have a universal rule. Here's some numbered cases:
I'd like at least some generic discussion on where is that line done. I know we can all list examples, but please only list more examples if they are as grey as the ones mentioned above. Dave ( talk) 01:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
According the comments made at FAC and reinforced with a message box on the documentation for {{ inflation}}, that template is using Consumer Price Index (CPI) to calculate its end result. Roads, as capital expenses, should be using a different inflationary adjustment technique. For the time being, I've commented out all of the inflationary adjustments in M-6 (Michigan highway) and I'm going to suggest that others using the template in their articles do the same on articles coming up for review. I'm going to post on the template's talk page, maybe they can update it with a parameter to give us better results in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 10:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
inflation|US|144000|1981|r=-3}}
to convert $144,000 in 1981 to 2011 values using CPI, we could have {{
inflation|US|144000|1981|r=-3|method=MW}}
to use the Measured Worth calculation method or {{
inflation|US|144000|1981|r=-3|method=GDP}}
to the relative share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) calculation method. If something similar is added to the template (and an corresponding update to the citation {{
inflation-fn}}), then I'll restore the inflationary adjustments. Now I just need to hope that this development does not derail an otherwise successful-looking FAC.
Imzadi
1979
→
23:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Now that WPUS is up and running and the US Wikipedian's collaboration is rebuilt, I wanted to focus on cleaning up and revamping Portal:United States. First, Per a comment on the talk page, I have added the US roads portal to the list of US related portals on the bottom of the portal main page.
As one of the most active US related WikiProjects I also wanted to ask if anyone would be interested in adding a selected article related to the US roads to the list of featured articles. If not perhaps you could suggest one and I will add it? The article should preferably be GA or higher quality or it may be B class if it is high or top importance. -- Kumioko ( talk) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Even with certain developments, the concept and the request are sound. I would like the project to nominated 4 articles we can add to this portal. My thoughts are:
These represent geographic diversity (Midwest, West, Northeast, South), diversity of classification (state, Interstate, US Highway, special route) and they all are Featured Articles. I welcome any substitutions that might be suggested, and I hope we can make the additions to the portal in a timely fashion. Imzadi 1979 → 23:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I have added a recommendation to the talk page of Portal:United States for Consideration. Since we have more than 200 US related projects, about 75 of which are active in some capacity, I would like to add a section to the portal to feature a project (I am trying to determine the interval but I was thinking random pick like the articles are). I believe this would draw interest to the projects, to the articles they support and even to the portal itself (at least from the members of that projet I hope). Does anyone have any comments, concerns or suggestions with regards to doing this? As one of the more active projects I was considering profiling US roads as one of the first along with NRHP and United States (not sure about the order yet) starting February 1st adding more after that. -- Kumioko ( talk) 21:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Nevada State Route 582#Merge proposal. Dough 48 72 05:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
What happened to listing "major intersections" in the infobox? Right now we just have south/west end and north/east end, which ends up looking a tad confusing. CL ( T · C) — 20:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought this was an appropriate place to ask this since Template talk:Cite news isn't really responsive.
I typed in the following text for a reference: <ref>{{cite news|title=Sand Creek Cleanup Shows Heart|date=September 13, 2004|newspaper=Denver Post|accessdate=February 1, 2011}}</ref> into Interstate 270 (Colorado). The reference appeared like this: "Sand Creek Cleanup Shows Heart". Denver Post. September 13, 2004. What happened to the accessdate? Did I write something wrong? -- P C B 00:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Virginia State Route 168#Merge proposal. Dough 48 72 03:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 1 in Massachusetts#Merge proposal. Dough 48 72 04:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I created a new map request form on WP:USRD/MTF/R. If you've used the Highway Route Marker Bot on Commons, it should be fairly similar. A couple additions I made were a color code for how long a request has sat. Under 60 days, it's green. Between 60 and 120 days, it's yellow. From 120 days to 1 year, it's red. After a year, it's black. The colors were arbitrary as were the lengths of time. The other addition was a template that tells what class the article is.
Right now the only downfall I can see is that it starts with second-level headings. I want to make sure it works before I make a request to change everything officially. – Fredddie ™ 03:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
If an existing U.S. Highway (or Interstate) has been shortened and no longer enters a state it once did, does the USRD banner on that highway's article still include those states? For example, U.S. 77 is tagged for Minnesota and South Dakota but no longer enters either state. I've seen other cases where the article isn't tagged for states it no longer enters. -- Sable232 ( talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The IP from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 16#More poor IP edits is back. See Special:Contributions/98.81.9.116. – T M F 05:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Latham Circle → Latham, New York. Discussion is at Talk:Latham, New York#merger?. – T M F 10:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
In my draft of the Article Interstate 49 in Missouri at User:Intelati/Sandbox/1, is the exit list fine or will that have to wait until 2012 when the new interstate opens?-- intelati talk 02:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
As part of splitting routes out of List of minor routes in Pennsylvania, I was interested in removing Pennsylvania Route 179 out of the list. Since it is a fairly short route and mutually related to New Jersey Route 179, I feel the best option is to merge the route with NJ 179. In doing so, should the title of the article remain New Jersey Route 179 for the longer route or become Route 179 (New Jersey – Pennsylvania) for a combined route? In addition, I am also asking for how the infobox for the combined article should appear. Dough 48 72 02:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion here to delete some rather redundant shields made by User:Route11 on Commons.Mitch32( Erie Railroad Information Hog) 01:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Portal:United States is a current featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. -- RichardF ( talk) 14:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I propose limiting ACR so that only Good Articles can be nominated. Are there objections? -- Rs chen 7754 06:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the consensus here is clear - and I don't anticipate it changing - I've made the change. – T M F 23:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a related change I'd like to toss out for some discussion. Since GAN and FAC have set criteria, and our A-Class articles now by definition will fall in between those levels, I'm wondering if we couldn't/shouldn't formulate a checklist of sorts for A-Class in our project. In other words, what are the general things that we agree an article must do or must have before A-Class is appropriately conferred. Such a list of criteria would allow potential nominators to double check before completing the nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 05:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I have another relevant question regarding ACR changes. Is ACR intending to be a peer review for articles heading to FA? Or is it just another class between FA and GA? If it is the latter, then there should definitely be more A-class articles than FA's. In that case, we might have to do a large GA search for A-worthy articles. -- P C B 00:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
There is an added gap, at least on my display, between the banner and the shield. – Fredddie ™ 01:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
line-height
property. –
T
M
F
05:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
From what I can tell, whatever caused it has been fixed. – Fredddie ™ 14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The pointer to this project from Talk:Transportation in Georgia (U.S. state) was changed by Freddie. Doesn't seem to be any discussion about this project being superceded here. Anyone know what is happening? The edit summary read "WP:Transport", the Project he was changing it to, but no explanation. Student7 ( talk) 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Once the article though ventures outside of the state highways, its scope exceeds that of USRD. In fact, USRD's parent, WP:HWY is a subproject of WP:Transport, meaning that project is the appropriate one for that article. Imzadi 1979 → 10:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Dough4872/GA by number, a contest encouraged to improve articles to GA quality. Dough 48 72 03:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I took another look at State Route 78 (Arizona – New Mexico) that New Mexico uses the name "state road", whereas ADOT uses "state route". The title of the article seems to have assumed the ADOT name. In addition, the infobox seems to say that it is New Mexico (and Arizona) Route 78, which is not an official name for either of them. How should this be resolved? -- P C B 04:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that you all have been following the recent debates about merging the sub-articles in here. Now, the problem is that the article is in a horrible mess right now. I think that it's going to take intervention from the USRD project to get this article back into some sort of shape; it's way too much for any one person to do, and certain users refuse to let anything be removed from the article.
Does anyone notice stuff that should be removed from the article that is irrelevant or excess quotes? For one, I think the archaeological dig stuff should go. -- Rs chen 7754 09:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
In light of the recent events at Maryland Route 200 I would like to propose an addendum banning subpages of state highway or state-detail articles, i.e. "Route description of...", "History of...", etc. -- Rs chen 7754 19:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems in the past few weeks an editor has created a few new ones and "revamped" others. (See Category:County roads in Minnesota.) The problem is that all of these lists have numerous entries simply stating "County Road xx is a road." County roads in St. Louis County, Minnesota, once quite nicely readable if incomplete, now lists roads from 1 through 999 (and I'm not sure all those really exist) and the vast majority have no information.
What's the proper way to deal with this? -- Sable232 ( talk) 03:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
We're down to about a week left, so please collect your final ideas together for portal content for the day. Unlike regular monthly updates, I would like to have the contenders for article, picture and DYKs at least picked by next Tuesday (3/29) so we can finalize the wording of the blurb, caption and hooks. Imzadi 1979 → 09:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm back. I'm finishing the upgrade of the exit list of Interstate 5 in California to use {{ Jctexit}}. However, how do I handle exits that straddle cities (like Exit 100)? - happy 5214 10:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
|location_special=
lets you input something like [[Irvine, California|]]–[[Tustin, California|]]
as a custom location. (There is a corresponding |county_special=
for county entries if a junction falls on a county line.) As the template says though, you need to supply the full wiki markup for either alternate parameter.
Imzadi 1979
→
11:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's something curious I've stumbled across. Apparently, the folks over at the Wikimedia spectrum of Wikiworld have created an experimental pilot of an Article Feedback Tool. A number of USRD articles have been included in their testing deployment by means of a hidden category, Category:Article Feedback Pilot, including:
The tool places a box at the bottom of the article allowing readers to assess on a five-point scale for elements of trustworthiness, objectivity, completeness, and quality of writing. The pilot has an FAQ here. The tool at present doesn't seem to provide any means to allow readers to add comments at this point. I'm not sure how particularly useful this will be. For instance, on the US 67 bannered routes article, only the Texas section is complete while all the routes in other states merely have headers as placeholders for now, so I don't see how this tool would tell anything any editor wouldn't already know. Perhaps they chose this particular page for the fact that it is incomplete for their testing and evaluation. Anyway, this looks interesting. Fortguy ( talk) 01:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion is here. -- Kinu t/ c 21:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please contribute to the discussion. -- Rs chen 7754 01:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
In order to reduce confusion, and to better reflect the project's scope, I'm proposing to rename the project from "WikiProject U.S. Roads" (USRD) to "WikiProject U.S. Highways" (USH) The subproject devoted to the United States Numbered Highway System would be referred to as "U.S. Routes" (USR). This would make clear the distinction between USH and USST (U.S. Streets). The USRD abbreviations would be supplemented by USH abbreviations in all cases except the portal. Imzadi 1979 → 10:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Support This has been a thinktank proposal for a while. I think it's been long enough since the USH designation was used. -- Rs chen 7754 19:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Support Fortguy ( talk) 01:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This has a picture-request. What exactly do you guys want? A picture of the "51"-sign? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Since there has been some tension in the past with some of my tagging I wanted to come and let you know that I have compiled a list of pages that s with US, U.S. American, United States or List of one of these and are lacking WikiProject banners.
Most of the ones that fall under your project are redirects so its not a huge problem. Some are not though. Before I start tagging them I wanted to ask you if you want me to tag them as redirects for US roads or for United States. I am perfectly ok either way but I think they should be tagged with at least one so that the page can be monitored for activity (commments, redirects for deletion, etc). Here are links to the pages I have compiled so far:
Please let me know if you have any questions. -- Kumioko ( talk) 03:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
After going through the list I think I have zeroed in on all the US roads related pages. here is a list of the ones that I think refer to an article in the US roads project. The list is rather long and as I mentioned before I think most are redirects but if someone could take a look and make sure this list looks pretty good I would appreciate it. There may be some that don't pertain to the project. Just for clarification the bot will detect if its a redirect/Disambiguation or not so I am not making assumptions but there might be a small amount of articles I missed as being for US roads. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- Kumioko ( talk) 18:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
{{USRD|state1=AL|state2=AK|...}}
? Some of the articles should be quite clear, but would you like us to go through the articles that don't have an obvious state? –
Fredddie
™
01:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I would ask whether the tagging of all these redirects is necessary. Kumioko indicated that the project has about 2544 redirects. What is probably not realized is that about 1050 of those are in the Wisconsin project alone. That's because someone went through and created talk pages and tags for each iteration of each highway on the state's redirect list. I don't necessarily think that tagging all of the "U.S. 71 (AR)", "U.S. Highway 71 (Arkansas)", "U.S. Route 71 (Arkansas)", "US 71 (AR)", "US Route 71 (Arkansas)", etc. pages as redirects is a particularly helpful exercise. My two cents... -- LJ ↗ 09:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
|appropriate state abbreviation=
=. Is there anything else I need to do? I will tag 20-30 to begin with so that you have a chance to check to make sure they are right before I process large numbers. Please let me know if you have any more comments or concerns. --
Kumioko (
talk)
01:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I made a request over at WP:USRD/MTFR, but I'll repeat it here. I need a map created to address a comment made at US 131's FAC. It needs to be a map of Grand Rapids, circa 1962. I can provide a scanned copy of the city insets via e-mail to anyone to help make the map. Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Should article about state departments of transportation exist within the USRD scope? Most of them also manage railroads, etc, not just roads. -- P C B 04:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
See WT:USRD/SUB. -- Rs chen 7754 05:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this is not the correct venue to alert your project, but Washington State Route 527 is in need of an update. The Washington State Legislature recently passed HB1520 [10] which removed a significant portion of SR 527 and turned it over to the City of Bothell. The page therefore needs to be updated. -- RoninBK T C 11:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I need a favor from someone that's good with GIS to make an update to an article. M-134 (Michigan highway) uses the Drummond Island Ferry to connect to Drummond Island. MDOT's Physical Reference Finder Application is great to give me roadway distances to the thousandth of a mile (about a 5-foot precision), but it doesn't track the route of the ferry. If someone can help me calculate the distance across the channel between the two docks, then I can update the article to include the true length of the highway. Any assistance is appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 07:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that it is common practice for junction lists to use the airport sign to symbolize an airport that is located off an exit of a road. There are sometimes other important destinations such as train stations that are signed on guide signs on freeways with either the MUTCD train station symbol or the logo of the railroads serving the station. For these instances, would it be appropriate for a train station sign to be included in the exit list? Dough 48 72 04:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I approve of using special symbols (airport, train station, ferry, etc.) in Junction lists if they are not overused. The use of the symbol should be based on reality in highway signage; this guideline might need to be unofficial, however, because such a basis borders on WP:OR. The Junction list entry must also wikilink to the article for the airport, train station, etc. I suggest the following guidelines for whether or not to use a symbol:
Wasn't there discussion some time ago about not including airport and similar icons in the junction lists at all? -- LJ ↗ 06:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Papago Freeway Tunnel. — P C B 15:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
What do all of you think of starting a task force for coordinating U.S. Route 66? Clearly, it's our most important and most viewed article, so we need to do it right. I'm thinking of a one-stop shop for brainstorming and sharing research, discussing goals and potential content forks, and a whole bunch of other stuff I can't think of at the moment. I'd ask around at local WPs to see if there are some roadgeeks-in-hiding, or just history buffs, who would be interested in helping. The article(s) can only get better from here. – Fredddie ™ 08:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I checked out the List of Interstate Highways in Michigan in response to your concern of possible template navbox clutter with 47 links. I'm well aware that this article list is already there (though not every Interstate list is made for each state on Wikipedia), but even so, if I make a template for Michigan there is a strong possibility that only the main Interstates would be linked. I didn't realize Michigan has a lot of business routes but even I think listing every link individually may clutter it up. I did have plans to edit the Template:Texas Interstate Highways to include these but only with the "(various)" tag since TX's business loops have a different letter prefix for each branch (ex.: 35-B, 35-D). I could link Business routes of Interstate 94 as " 94 (various)" to minimize the clutter issue. Hope this helps. Thank you. GETONERD84 ( talk) 16:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The auxiliary route navboxes though were developed to replace a lengthy "See also" section containing all of the various 3dIs and 3dUSs of a 2dI or 2dUS. Part of the problem with the "See also" section is that per MOS:LAYOUT, if a link is mentioned even once in the body of the article, it's not supposed to appear in that section. If the section is canned in favor of a navbox, we don't have to worry about checking links, and we get a consistent display of the 3dI or 3dUS links (assuming there are enough to warrant a navbox).
Personally, I prefer a streamlined approach with a minimal set of non-redundant navboxes at the bottom of the article. In some cases, that means none. Currently, the only ones in use in Michigan-specific articles are {{ Northern Michigan}} and the various 3dI/3dUS boxes. One thing to remember as well: too many navboxes with too many links distorts the "What links here" list for an article because any transclusion of the navbox will over a link, even if the article has no connection to the subject. (I'm talking about you, Northern Michigan template!) Imzadi 1979 → 23:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This is just a friendly reminder about the 2011 stub goal. Tonight, we hit our 800th stub removed since January 1! Great news, but we have fallen off pace. At the pace we're going, we will remove our 2011th stub on January 2, 2012. To be comfortably ahead of our pace, we need a good push like we had back in January. Thanks and happy de-stubbing! – Fredddie ™ 02:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI. postdlf ( talk) 21:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
WT:No original research#Are maps secondary_sources.3F. Imzadi 1979 → 16:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The Junction list on U.S. Route 301 in South Carolina needs to be reversed. Anybody care to tackle this? ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains they have to-do list banners just for railroad related articles. Who likes the idea of making to-do banners just for the roads? ---- DanTD ( talk) 18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I was just playing with an idea for the United States portal and I wanted to run it by you. Within the hundred or so US related portals we have essentially 4 main groups; Portal United States, Portal US Roads, Portal United States Government and Portal United States military. What I was thinking was to possibly tie these 4 main groups together, possibly something like Portal:United States/Sandbox so that a reader could in theory navigate from one to the other with relative ease. This would in essence tie together the core groupings where US roads is all the roads related stuff, United States is the general broad spectrum US related, Government is government related stuff and Military is military (American Civil War, the branches, etc). Of course there are multitudes of portals that relates to each potentially but I think this might be a good way to make it easier for our users to somewhat seemlessly traverse the information. Of course each project would still be responsible for maintaining the portal that realtes to them. The example given is just an example and because some of the portals already employ a tab system it might look a little different from portal to portal but the links could still be available allowing the users to navigate back and forth. Its definately just a consept at the moment but what do you think about this idea? -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the box with the stop sign is doing us any good, since WT:USRD doesn't receive as much traffic as it used to. Currently, people are posting on the pages in the box, and the discussion either gets ignored or moved right over here. Do we need this box anymore or can it be removed? -- Rs chen 7754 22:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Interstate 395 (Florida) – I-395 into FL 836. Mitch32( Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?) 04:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI: An IP editor has been editing a bunch of the state-detail articles on I-70, as well as I-40 in NM. On the I-70 in CO article, he added way too many junctions in the infobox, as well as changed order of shields (numerical order without regard to highway type). I reverted the Colorado article, but interested editors may want to check other I-70 articles to make sure the edits are not unreasonable. -- LJ ↗ 00:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Roadies!
I corresponded with the DOT and verified that all of their hazard symbols are public domain. There are about 40 of them. Wonder if there is someone interested in uploading them? See [11]. TCO ( talk) 00:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've started noticing these abbreviations, which are most unsatisfactory. Even some American readers will have to ponder what CO means. And I've seen CA for Canada and for California. Usually, the full state is in the target, but the info is reduced in the pipe. Tony (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
|states=
parameter, which lists the names for the three states in full. That location field is a 2010 addition to the infobox that didn't exist when that article. Please also note that using |country=USA
not |country=US
actually breaks the infobox because {{
infobox road}} uses the
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code for a county, not the alpha-2 code.
Imzadi 1979
→
17:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)So there doesn't appear to be any clear standard, but does appear ample precedent for using USPS codes in US related articles. Dave ( talk) 04:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
U.S. Route 491 is tentatively scheduled to be the featured article for July 4th. This is one of our older FA's and is frankly not up to modern FA standards. However, there is time to fix it, several USRD editors have already chipped in. Any assistance would be appreciated. Imzadi and Rschen have already fixed the stylistic issues, and I'm updating the article to replace the outdated info. Still to be done is the use of map sources which has since become controversial. Dave ( talk) 02:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This has been a thought in my mind since I saw Florida State Road 880 in person myself. FL 880 is a .4 of a mile state highway in Belle Glade, Florida. The route continues for 18 1/2 miles as a county road, clearly more notable than the SR that it is for a couple blocks. New Jersey and Florida both have a tendency to do this (NJ 64 & CR 571, NJ 13 & Ocean CR 632 in Jersey, and NJ 162 & Cape May CR 626 are good examples of the situation) where SR makes a portion of a CR which is definitely longer. Using other Florida examples such as Florida State Road 809, Florida State Road 807, where the CR is by far the better known road. Now it might not apply in the case of FL 809, which is pretty long, but CR 809 definitely goes further than FL 809 does.
My question at hand, should there be a consideration in WP:USRD/STDS to allow if the CR is by consensus the better title to merge the SR into a new CR article and cover it there? I think this would work in situations such as County Road 880 (Palm Beach County, Florida) instead of Florida State Road 880 or County Route 827 (Palm Beach County, Florida) instead of the decommissioned Florida State Road 827, where CR 827 is a more significant highway. I get the feeling people might disagree with me, but I'd like to hear other opinions on this. Mitch32( Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?) 20:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I was finally able to correct the direction for the route description to Florida State Road 19, although I really wanted to add more material there, like the concurrency with "Backwoods Trail" in Ocala National Forest. Let me know what you think of it before I eliminate the duplicate from my sandbox. ---- DanTD ( talk) 03:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to the important people of the world (like Kim Kardashian), the closure of the 405 next weekend is making the front page as the pending traffic jam from hell. Thought I'd share it. Even though its not exactly discussion, its pretty interesting. [12] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
We have a number of articles that where the road has, in the past, used a sequential exit numbering system and now uses mile-based exit numbering. At what point are the old exit numbers still notable enough to include? Never? 5 years? 10 years? – Fredddie ™ 21:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Do we have any articles where the old exit numbers would stay? – Fredddie ™ 22:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, after doing some on-IRC consultation with Fredddie ( talk · contribs), we've updated {{ jctint}} and its state-specific sub-templates. Now, the entire family of junction list templates will work for both at-grade highway junction lists and freeway exit lists. {{ Jctexit}} and {{ exittop}} have been merged into {{ jctint}} and {{ jcttop}} respectively using the same method {{ jctbridge}} and {{ jctco}} used.
To create an exit list, follow the same methods as creating a junction list using the templates, and append |exit
to the template name. In other words, call {{jcttop|exit
for the header and {{jctint|exit
for the individual entries, filling in the remaining details as needed. Previously, {{jctbridge|exit
and {{jctco|exit worked for use in exit lists, and the updated templates now follow the same scheme.
Note, if you're making table for a highway that has mixed at-grade and freeway segments, and the freeway segments have numbered exits, you need to append |exit
every time you use the templates or the table will have formatting errors.
At this time, there is no method that works to use templates for freeways that have old and new exit number columns. Based on the discussion above, most of the articles that have such a list will probably lose their old exit numbers columns in the near future. If there is a need though to allow such a thing, I have a few options under consideration to add that functionality to the existing templates. Imzadi 1979 → 00:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Pennsylvania Route 134#Organization. Dough 48 72 04:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I happened to see that M-185 (Michigan highway) had been translated into Russian. I clicked on the talk page there to see if attribution was given, and found this when I translated it to English. Imzadi 1979 → 07:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought that I'd mention it here for a wider audience. Currently, we have Routing of the Great River Road split from Great River Road. I'd like to propose that the former be merge into the latter, and any splitting that takes place follows the model of state-detail pages. In the end, we'd have Great River Road as the main page and Great River Road in Minnesota, Great River Road in in Wisconsin, Great River Road in Iowa, etc plus Great River Road in Ontario and Great River Road in Manitoba. (The two Canadian provinces could be merged into one with redirects.) Imzadi 1979 → 11:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
If you'll choose an appropriate venue for the discussion I'll move these comments to that venue. Dave ( talk) 14:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 15#File:MNOld31.png -- Sable232 ( talk) 00:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion regarding whether a list of legislators should be included in the article. -- Rs chen 7754 04:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Recently, I found out that Maryland is beginning to use new route markers for state business routes like the one shown. I uploaded markers for the state's 4 existing state business routes under the format "MD Route x Business.svg". Now I just need someone to update Infobox road to use the new markers. I tried doing it myself, and quickly realized it would be better to get someone more familiar with its coding. Thanks in advance! -Jeff (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal to modify WT:RJL to allow geotagging of highway articles in the junction lists, at specified important points along the route. Your input is welcome. -- Rs chen 7754 02:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
We have a number of articles in a few states ( SR-13 and SR-25 in Alabama, for example) where the majority of a route number is a secret designation of another highway, usually a US Highway, but there exists a standalone section where the secret route is signed. How should we handle these? My gut reaction is to only talk about the standalone section and direct readers to the main highway for the secret sections.
I'd like to codify the result of the discussion in WP:USRD/NT. – Fredddie ™ 02:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
... V C 17:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I was asking the Maine DOT today where I could find the definition of the various state routes, especially 178. The answer, unfortunately, was that it's not online. :-( He did tell me where 178 ran, though. We don't currently have an article, so I'm pasting it here in case someone wants to work with it.
State Route 178 begins in the city of Brewer, at the intersection of State and North Main Streets (North Main St. also carries St. Rte. 9 through that intersection). From that point, Rte. 178 proceeds northeastward along North Main St. (piggybacking with Rte. 9) through Brewer and into the town of Eddington. At the village of Eddington (milepoint 4.1 from beginning), Rte. 9 splits off and heads east towards Calais, while Rte. 178 continues northeastward along Riverside Drive into the town of Bradley. Rte. 178 continues along the eastern side of the Penobscot River (the road carries the name of Main St.) through the town of Bradley into the town of Milford. Route 178 (in Milford, the road carries the name of the Bradley Road) ends at its junction with U.S. Route 2, at milepoint 13.3.
Enjoy! -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
All of these various articles need to be cleaned up and revised. The system itself fell out of use in the 1930s, yet many of our articles on these routes imply that the system is still in use. New England Route 26's lead and infobox did until I just edited it. If any article titles for current designations are being redirected into the NER articles, that needs to stop. If that means we need to create articles for modern designations, so be it, but implying that NER 26 is an active designation is wrong. Imzadi 1979 → 22:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
User:NE2 has discovered issues with [14], because the text came from [15]. Not looking good.
I've already evaluated the question "What if pahighways.com copied from Wikipedia?" by looking at archive.org in 2008, and I found the exact same text.
Thought we should get some input before deciding what our next steps, if any, should be. -- Rs chen 7754 09:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
First column is the PA Route number checked. Second, if any direct copying from pahighways was observed.
Dave ( talk) 17:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I need to say something here. I have a major problem with the way we're treating this, the two mentioned by Dough (on Pennsylvania Route 41 and Pennsylvania Route 72) were done by IPs. The one NE2 reverted today is from a long time, now basically-retired, distinguished US Roads editor who has helped PA significantly. Sure he made a rookie mistake in 2007 and it went unnoticed, I thank NE2 for noticing it. I have a problem that we're nearly damaging the editor's record over one rookie mistake. Let's please move on before it gets worse.Mitch32( God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring) 05:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Once my edit request for {{ jctint}} is completed, another set of upgrades will be complete on the junction/exit list templates.
Now, if |old
is appended after a template's name (as the first unnamed parameter), the templates will generate an addition column for the old exit number along a freeway's exit list. The parameter for the the old exit in jctint is called... "old". {{
jcttop}} also has two new parameters, |old_ref=
and |unnum=
The first adds a reference to the old exit column of the table. The second adds a note, "All exits are unnumbered." above the table and switches the "Roads intersected" column title to "Destinations" to match other exit lists.
Imzadi 1979
→
22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Usage of old exit numbers in articles is up to consensus, but based on WT:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 17#Old/New exit numbers, I think it's fair to say that we decided to limit display of old numbers to a reasonable timeframe after the changeover, and remove them afterwards. Several states will be changing over in the coming years as the 2009 MUTCD is fully implemented. In addition, Interstate 69 in Indiana will be re-mileposted by INDOT once AASHTO approves the newest section of that Interstate in the state. Either way, it's easy to remove the old numbers from displaying in an article just by changing the "old" after the template name to "exit". Imzadi 1979 → 22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
There is now {{ jctgap}} to code a gap in a route in the junction list. Imzadi 1979 → 01:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
http://apps.transportation.ky.gov/DMI_Reports/Official_MP_RL_params.aspx
It goes county-by-county, so you have to do some addition, but it's better than nothing at all! – Fredddie ™ 16:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I was improving Missouri State Route 5, and I noticed that the Major junctions list in the info box was long. What should I include? Two digit US Routes and interstates? Or all US routes?-- intelati talk 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#A-class review. Dough 48 72 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Just so everyone is aware, a small, but major, change has been made to the junction list templates that will affect things going forward. Namely, if you have a junction that has a range of mileposts, you'll have to slightly change how the MPs are input in the future. Using the
M-6 exit list for an example, The US 131 interchange is along MPs 7.886–8.776. The template input for that is |mile= 7.886
and |mile2=8.776
. The template automatically formats it with the en dash and the line break.
If you're using {{
jctbridge}} for state line crossings, like in the
US 223 article, use the same formatting, like |mile=0.67
and |mile2=0.000
and add |line=something, anything like yes, y, etc
and it will insert the horizontal rule.
If you're working on an article with metric distances, use |km= |km2=
for the same purposes. Nothing appearance-wise has changed yet, and if you use the parameters the old way, nothing will break—for now.
The reason is that at some point in the future, it may be necessary to modify the templates to automatically generate a metric conversion in a second column. If the miles have non-numeric characters, the parser functions to generate the metric output will fail. We need to input MP ranges this way so that each number can be converted and not have the dash (you aren't still using a hyphen, are you?) get in the way. Also, if the articles are inputting kilometer measurements as miles, even if the table header says "km", the conversion will come out wrong. The idea is to future proof now, so that if the change is made, the templates can be updated and every article will change at once for us. (And before anyone says it, California will have to be a known exception to these plans because of their unique postmile system.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This was me thinking out loud on IRC earlier, but I thought I'd share it with those who weren't there. – Fredddie ™ 23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I've thought about how we can improve how our banner handles assessment. What I was thinking was to give the three sections a ratings system. We would add three parameters to the banner,
|RD=
,|Hist=
, and|RJL=
and we'd rate them each 0, 1, or 2. 0 for non-existent, 1 for present, 2 for really good/complete and the assessment would be based on the sum of the three values: 0-1=stub, 2-3=start 4-5=C 6=B. So, if you have an awesome and complete route description, but no history or RJL, it would be Start-class.
Obviously anything over a B would be changed by |class=
. This would, in effect, institute a B-class checklist for the project, but it would also mean a huge undertaking by us to get the entire project reassessed. Again. I do think it would be unwise to institute something like this at this time as it would scuttle the stub drive. Anyway, I'd like your thoughts on this. Again, I'm not proposing we do this at this time. –
Fredddie
™
23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
We have some room to add types to the banner. I'm thinking |type=DOT/Law/Govt
and |type=jct
. I'm kinda torn at whether there should be separate DOT and Law types or if they should be combined as Govt. These types would let us override the assessments, but they would also give us article quality statistics for these articles. I don't think it would be a bad idea to add these types anyway, and I'd probably also add |type=CR
to track county roads, but that's something else entirely. –
Fredddie
™
17:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Random implementation idea: perhaps we could code the logic somewhat like this (please excuse the psuedocode):
if(article is flagged as a non-active-route) use class parameter as supplied else if(class >= GA) use class parameter as supplied else if(sections are rated individually) use that to determine the class else if(class < GA) use class parameter as supplied categorize article in "Articles which have not been rated on a section-by-section basis" (or something less cumbersome)
This would mean we could go ahead and implement this without breaking the current assessment system while still flagging them for eventual later reassessment. New articles and reassessments could gradually drain the "have not been rated by-section" category until such time that an assessment audit is desired to be performed anyway. The category could perhaps be broken up by state as appropriate in case subprojects wish to audit/assess their articles at once. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
While browsing through User:Multichill/Free uploads/2011-10-16 (which is a list of all Commons-eligible files uploaded on the given date) I stumbled on some shields which are redundant to our established sets (and several of which bear MUTCD sign codes instead of the "standard" scheme). I'm about to head to bed so I can't deal with it right now, but maybe we should look into what's going on here and perhaps look at the uploader's other contribs to see if there's something we need to work on here? Maybe do some FFD? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Michigan State Trunkline Highway System could use addition project member participation. Unlike most ACRs that are normally combing through to tweak and clarify wording, verify image license/copyright status and such, this article is about the system as a whole, not one highway. We just don't have a "big three" formula for writing such an article at this time. Please look through and offer comments, since quite likely, this article will serve as some sort of template for similar articles in the other states. What needs to be added, expanded, summarized, etc? Is there anything in here that's too trivial? Imzadi 1979 → 02:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm setting a publication deadline for Halloween for the newsletter. If you have any updates for your state since the last newsletter went out in April, please add them to the newsroom soon. If the issue comes together faster, I may have it published sooner though. Imzadi 1979 → 22:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
FL 63 and redundancy to U.S. Route 27. Proposal at Talk:Florida State Road 63#Merge proposal.Mitch32( Never support those who think in the box) 22:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to turn off the hatnote so we don't have issues like the jct list in the above article with two hatnotes? -- Rs chen 7754 18:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Template:Infobox road small does not show up shields for Arkansas business routes on pages like Auxiliary routes of U.S. Route 71. They are in the form File:US 62B.svg in order to show the "B", maybe this is the issue? Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 22:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
|type=US |route= 71B
. You need to use |type=US |subtype=Bus |route= 71
.
Imzadi 1979
→
23:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC){{USRD essay}}
is up for deletion. --
Rs
chen
7754
20:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I've made significant improvements to North Spokane Corridor. While it doesn't have an exit list, I think we can make an exception for a highway that is far from complete. I was hoping for a reassessment to a better category that Start. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder, there are 50 days left in 2011 and we still have over 300 stubs to go to reach our goal. Our rate so far has been on average 5.4 stubs removed per day. If we want to meet our goal, our required pace is now 6.2 stubs per day, unless we knock out a bunch in one day. Keep up the great work! – Fredddie ™ 05:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Howdy, I have been working on a project to create a former roads page for Texas similar to the one California has, to help wittle down a chunk of the Texas state highway stubs. Here's what I put together [16]. It got kinda long (101 routes), but would take ~50 stubs out of the way. Can I get some feedback on the design/implementation of this page? Thanks. 25or6to4 ( talk) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The statistics are showing exactly 1,000 B-Class articles at this time. A quick glance at the upper-half line graph shows this is an historic moment on The Price Is Right a first in USRD project history. Kudos, everyone! —
Scott5114
↗
[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]
00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
There is an RfC that's been started about deprecating the portal namespace. I would suggest that USRD editors make an effort to add portal links to articles in the coming year, if not sooner. Part of the reasons that portals are underuse, I think, is that they lack visibility. IMHO, we should be linking to appropriate portals on every highway article. After all, P:USRD is a Featured Portal, so we should be showcasing it and giving it some visibility. As of right now we have:
Multiple portals can be inserted using {{ portal box}}, or you can do what I did with M-185 (Michigan highway) and use {{ portal-inline}}. Portal links belong in the See also section, if it exists, or you can include them at the top of another section after the body of the article. (I moved M-185's portal links to be inline in the See also section just because they squished the two-column references section too much.) They don't belong in External links sections because portal pages aren't external to the English Wikipedia. (Commons and the other sister projects, on the other hand, are separate sites and considered external to Wikipedia.)
Oh, and please remember to continue suggesting articles, photos and DYK hooks for P:USRD so that we can continue to update the portal every month (and again on April Fool's.) Imzadi 1979 → 21:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)