This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Well, it's hard to believe, but 2015 will mark 10 years of the USRD project. To this end, there are three conversations that I want to start at this time.
Our last major vision planning was in 2012, when we gained some new editors, deployed KMLs and Lua, expanded to other WMF wikis, and consolidated into one nationwide project.
One thing that comes to mind is that we need new editors. We need people to do both the stub->start and KML improvements, to do the heavy lifting of writing FAs, to do reviewing at all venues (GAN, ACR, FAC, and now FLC), and to maintain our template infrastructure and our project space pages locally and on other wikis. A lot of our more "experienced" editors are going to be hitting the 10 year mark this next year, and we need to raise up the next generation of road editors.
Speaking for myself, I haven't been around as much as I wanted to be this year, both due to real-life matters, and due to other Wikimedia responsibilities. While I am reevaluating what other Wikimedia responsibilities I will continue with next year, I know that I won't be around as much as I used to be as I continue into my mid-twenties (as is the story of many editors who started when they were teenagers, finished college, and are now coming into this next stage of their lives). Some others of us are starting to come into similar situations as well.
So, all this to say... as we come up on 10 years, where do we want to be as a project 3-5 years from now? -- Rs chen 7754 04:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Coming back to this discussion after a few days... I feel like there's this tension between what we "should" be working on and what we actually are interested in working on. The reason I feel that the US 66 goal is failing is because while it's our most popular article, nobody really is interested in tackling the monolith; we'd rather do articles in our own states because that's what we know.
So the question is, how do we overcome this? Is there a way to reconcile the two and find a happy medium? -- Rs chen 7754 04:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Another question that should be asked is how to handle the remainder of our 2014 goals. So far, we have not made much progress on either US 66 or the featured lists, and are a significant ways off from finishing the B-class goal, with only 2 months remaining. What should we do about this? -- Rs chen 7754 04:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
With both of the above subsections in mind, what should be our goals for 2015? -- Rs chen 7754 04:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I feel like I have to agree on the ambition problem. Some of us haven't been intentionally inactive (computer fail) but there seems to be a lot less interest in the last 4 months or so. Mitch32( The imitator dooms himself to hopeless mediocrity.) 18:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
What about something like this? Some sort of usual content-related goals, but there are constraints as to the editors. For example, say the goal was getting 100 GAs, we would say that 10% had to be from a "new editor". -- Rs chen 7754 21:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that we should keep the US 66 goal, but reform it or subdivide it so that it's more appealing to work on. Like, maybe we work on the KMLs, RJLs, and RDs and bring everything up to C-class one year and finish the job the next, or divide it by states, or something like that. Right now, we have an impossible task that nobody wants to do because 1) one person can't do it all and 2) if one person works on California, let's say, there's no guarantee that the other states will be done by anybody and on December 31, the goal still fails. -- Rs chen 7754 03:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as the FL goal, I don't think 12 FLs is very attainable, because let's face it: neither ACR nor FLC can handle that strain. I would rather do something like converting everything to templates, or a certain percentage. As far as the concerns regarding it being an objective, we did something similar for 2012 as a goal and it worked really well. -- Rs chen 7754 06:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
We have about 940 GAs; what if we made a goal to get 1000 GAs by the end of 2015? Or is that too low, considering that we've done over 100 in a year before? -- Rs chen 7754 03:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Just an idea: How about getting the class of all articles, or a specified number, in the list of popular pages to at least C, these are the pages people are most interested in, so it would be nice to make them into nice articles. TheWombatGuru ( talk) 14:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps c:COM:USRD and d:WD:USRD should have their own set of goals, as not everyone at USRD works at those two projects... -- Rs chen 7754 19:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
What about a stub drive? Now, I know it's not as exciting as it used to be, but it *does* get new editors involved. And I know that the stubs remaining aren't as easy as the ones already done... but, it's been over 2 years since the last stub drive, and we've gained a few hundred stubs, at least. -- Rs chen 7754 04:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, we should probably start deciding what the goals will be this week... in a few days I'll try and figure out what the top 4-5 are and then we can narrow it down. -- Rs chen 7754 02:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, here were the ideas that received some level of support. Thoughts? In a few days I'll come back and propose a set of goals and we can do some final discussion, so that we have goals before the newsletter comes out... -- Rs chen 7754 06:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree US 66 should get some attention in improvement, but I think we should combine it with the popular pages goal listed below. Dough 48 72 01:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree we should try to get all our lists converted to the routelist templates next year, even taking a few to FLC (though we need not make a goal to get a certain amount of FLs). Dough 48 72 01:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a better approach for this goal would be to have complete lists and implement the Michigan Plan, but I fear there's not a great way to quantify this. -- Rs chen 7754 06:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Somehow I don't think the routelist templates will work for Kentucky. -- NE2 04:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC) |
This sounds like a cool idea, but I don't know if it should necessarily take priority as a main goal. It can always remain as an interesting statistic we keep track of and can be a "unofficial" goal. Dough 48 72 01:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
|
I like this goal and I think we can realistically attain it as long as we have enough people that can review at ACR. Dough 48 72 01:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
|
I agree we should give our articles on our more important highways (such as I-80, I-95, US 1, and US 66) along with list and highway system articles more attention. The US 66 goal discussed above should be rolled into the popular pages goal, with the concepts proposed for the US 66 goal expanded to include other important highways as to provide a more national drive for improving important roads. Dough 48 72 01:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of trying to clean up all of the various national-detail articles the best though. As has been said, many of them are on the PP list, and they all kinda suck. It shouldn't be hard to get the RDs and RJLs hammered into shape. The RJL for a national IH/USH article that has subarticles is just a variation on a bulleted list, so they're even easier to do than a full RJL table. History sections might be more difficult since that would really require the ability to summarize the most major details out of the state-detail articles, or the option to research the major changes for the whole route. That said, as long as we could pinpoint when the highway was created, any major extensions or truncations, that should be enough for a national History. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Clear support for 1000 or 1010 (1010 was what we wrote in the newsletter). -- Rs chen 7754 17:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This sounds like a good metric-based goal that can work to provide for overall improvement of articles across all assessment classes in all states. Dough 48 72 01:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
These currently extant routes redirect to the main article, but other states on the same route do not.
-- NE2 16:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I just read about https://newspapers.library.in.gov/, which is a newspaper archive covering the years 1840 to 1922. If anybody wants to sift through it, I'm sure there are articles on the formation, implementation, etc. of the original state highway system, the details of which could be incorporated into a History section on List of State Roads in Indiana. [Was going to post at that article's talk page but figured it'd be more visible here] Mapsax ( talk) 18:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that two welcome center were added to the Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania exit list. I thought it was against policy to include rest areas and welcome centers in exit lists unless they were service plazas located along toll roads. I know Pennsylvania Turnpike has its service plazas included in the exit list. I was wondering whether or not we should include rest areas and welcome centers in the exit lists of non-tolled freeways. Dough 48 72 02:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
If I can "vote" here, I'm all for removing regular rest areas from toll-free highways. I can go with service areas on toll roads. Welcome centers, I'd drop as well. Imzadi 1979 → 05:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with including them, and have seen no valid arguments against them here. There are few enough that they won't overwhelm the list unless there are even fewer interchanges. {{ jctrestarea}} (a redirect to jctbridge) works perfectly. -- NE2 06:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I prefer that we not put rest areas in exit lists. If we do put them in exit lists, we should limit them to service areas (food and fuel). Also, because the exit list has a quantitative function, can we require that they only be included if we have a mileage point for the service area? V C 13:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing mixed opinions on this manner. Do you think we should take a straw poll to decide how rest areas should be handled in prose and exit list and whatever gets the most votes be implemented into WP:USRD/STDS? Dough 48 72 22:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, here is a straw poll of options:
Feel free to add any more options I may have missed. Dough 48 72 22:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Since consensus seems to be mixed, other than mentioning that rest areas should be covered in some form, do you think we should do a runoff and vote for the top two options? Dough 48 72 18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
it would be great if someone could double check that this is the correct fix for the duplicate args. Frietjes ( talk) 19:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
These two article were both created and promoted to GA status within the past week (they were listed as "Engineering and technology good article" for GA nomination). They are 0.3mi and 6.5mi respectively and both articles are very short. It doesn't seem like they meet the notability guidelines, but there would be a conflict of interest if I nominated them for deletion, so perhaps someone here can have a look and judge these. AHeneen ( talk) 14:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
"MS [number] is not included as a part of the National Highway System (NHS), a network of highways identified as being most important for the economy, mobility and defense of the nation." Whoa, really? Bloody padding.
There's definitely a completeness issue - just because it's not on state maps from 1967 to 1998 doesn't mean it didn't exist. -- NE2 17:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@ AHeneen: I take a slightly different opinion here than some of my colleagues. Using my home state as an example, we have Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, an indisputably notable topic unto itself. However, per WP:SIZE, that article cannot include all of the information on the system, so we spin off List of Interstate Highways in Michigan. Even then, we cannot include all of the information a proper treatment of each Interstate Highway in the state would require, so we spin off Interstate 69 in Michigan and its brethren. The same goes for List of U.S. Highways in Michigan and U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, List of state trunklines in Michigan and M-1 (Michigan highway), and Pure Michigan Byway. So far, I think we'd all be in agreement that each of these articles and lists form a proper hierarchy from the system down to the individual highway, and that each example is more than notable and therefore worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.
Here's where I start to differ in my opinion. We have cases in Michigan of highways that have very little history. They weren't controversial (like M-6), they haven't existed for almost a century with various reroutings, extensions or truncations (like M-28), they aren't especially scenic (like M-22), nor do they have cultural or historical significance (like M-1). Maybe it's a case where the highway just isn't that long, or it's located in a rural area, so we get cases like M-67. There's too much content on M-67 to up-merge it into the list, as we would lose the entire route description and most of the history section to avoid undue weight in the table. It would take a fundamental shift in consensus to merge that article into some sort of list of some kind, and if we deleted this article, we'd leave a hole in our complete coverage of the State Trunkline Highway System.
Lastly, AHeneen, your two Mississippi examples are not secondary state highways, not as the quoted guideline uses the term nor as the articles are currently written. Some states, like Montana, have different signage to indicate that a highway is secondary. Texas has several classifications that would qualify as secondary, such as their Farm/Ranch to Market Roads, their State Highway Loops/ Spurs, their Park Roads or their Recreational Roads, all of which are distinct from their primary State Highways. From the way the two Mississippi articles are written, they're just short state highways, without any primary–secondary distinction applied by the state. When this distinction is not applied by the state, we've defaulted to the "state highway = keep" outcome at AfD; an outcome that doesn't preclude merging them someplace, but you'll need to nominate that alternate location. Imzadi 1979 → 21:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There actually is more history: Talk:Mississippi Highway 548#History -- NE2 23:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Both articles are now at GA Review. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mississippi Highway 548/1 & Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mississippi Highway 844/1 -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Would there be consensus for mass removal of the bare statement that a route is not on the NHS? -- NE2 19:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I ran the numbers on the MS 844 route description. The NHS sentence makes up almost 30% of the entire section. It's one thing to sneak the sentence into a >50KB-long article, but it's another to significantly pad an article with a single sentence. Maybe that's the litmus test. If you can only write enough about something that you have to add the NHS sentence, then it shouldn't have its own article. – Fredddie ™ 02:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Just because something appears on the 1932 map but not the 1931 map does not mean it was created in 1932. This is a very common error. At best you can say it was created in 1931 or 1932 (if the maps are dated January 1, it might be acceptable to assume the state wouldn't create anything on New Year's Day, so it was created in 1931 - yet they might approve something effective January 1). -- NE2 00:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Similar to how named highways are no longer abbreviated in {{
Jct}}
, I'd like to propose that we drop the banner abbreviations for bannered routes. It's quite simple:
And so on and so forth. For off-Interstate business routes, I think we should drop the ambiguity as well.
I think it's easier to read and has the added benefit of being more natural for screen readers. – Fredddie ™ 01:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
Jct}}
because though I prefer the spelled out version, there is limited horizontal space in the infobox.
V
C 03:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)I was wondering if there should be a separate article for Interstate 26 in Tennessee? There is for the other two states it travels through ( North Carolina and South Carolina). ACase0000 ( talk) 16:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It should be merged with U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee. -- NE2 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I've compiled User:NE2/Interstate history from various sources to list when Interstates were created or deleted. -- NE2 07:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Found this new creation - notable enough to keep? Delete-worthy? Bencherlite Talk 20:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It feels like (and is almost literally) ages ago that we as a project discussed the future of the Farm-to-Market Road articles. In that discussion, we seemed to agree that the FM articles should be merged into lists unless their articles could reach GA or higher, but we didn't really come to consensus on how that should be done. This page was started to keep track of the creation of these lists, and a few of us signed up to work on the lists groups of 100. That was twenty months ago, and I just recently got around to finishing one of the groups of 100 I signed up for. Here it is.
I was glad I finally finished something onwiki for once, but then it occurred to me that we never actually came to consensus on what to do with the FM articles/lists. What are we going to do with this? The main list is completed, but what is going to be added in addition to the list? What should go in the lead? Another question to consider: is this how we want to put the FMs into lists? I personally think so, otherwise I wouldn't have spent so much time on it, but what do others think? Should we routelist them as my list does or should we RCS them? Opinions? T C N7JM 03:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
But be careful about merging. FM 1764 is a bloody freeway, and others may be more important than the average FM road. -- NE2 05:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I see three options for organizing the FM routes:
If there are any other options, please list them here. V C 00:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
A few metro navboxes have appeared on List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (1–99). Is this something we want to happen, or should they be removed? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
U.S. Route 85 in New Mexico — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.164.90 ( talk) 14:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Would anybody be bothered if I removed three redirected Bannered routes of U.S. Route 58 from the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport? In fact, I see a lot of requests there that won't work as anything else but redirects to lists of bannered routes. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 20:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Not so fast on the archiving. We should discuss this a little more in depth. – Fredddie ™ 01:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
As I was saying, the requested articles page has a shitload of bannered route red links. What should we do? I have some ideas:
I'm leaning to #1, but I can be swayed. – Fredddie ™ 01:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Continuing on that thought, we could format the page like this:
As an added bonus, the bannered route lists would break up the text somewhat regularly making the completion list easier to read and follow overall. – Fredddie ™ 05:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I created the page (here: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/U.S. Routes/Completion list/Bannered routes) with the redlinks from the Requested article page. I haven't done any formatting nor have I added the bluelinks we have now. – Fredddie ™ 04:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I've started on a detailed list: User:NE2/auxiliary -- NE2 19:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Bannered routes of U.S. Route 5 is probably something to be avoided: not enough information to even place the supposed current routes on a map. -- NE2 21:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:NE2/auxiliary now has all current ones I could verify and a smattering of former routes. -- NE2 03:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
None of these appear on old official maps. Here are the last pre-redirect versions:
These two had to exist before 1945, when the official map gets a Joplin inset that shows these as US 71 Bus. and US 66 proper. But in 1936 they were US 66 proper and Route W.
The only possibility for these is 1963, when the Springfield inset has some unlabeled routes (though neither goes "south to rejoin Business US 66 at the city square").
Does anyone have sources for them? -- NE2 23:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
There is discussion here for whether or not to include this interchange in the junction list, as it's a private interchange for ArcelorMittal. @ Traviswa: is concerned that, because it's private, it shouldn't be included lest someone take the junction list at face value and trespass on it but I feel that it should be included just like any other exit, and maybe indicated in the list that it's private. Is there a precedent for this? Including it seems congruent to MOS:RJL's "every grade separated interchange, without exception" rule. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Delete inappropriate dab entries? - ongoing dispute
I'm not going to WP:BEANS there, but the mention of Florida State Road 3 on FL 3, for example, is on the MOS enforcers' hit list. -- NE2 16:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I was wondering why U.S. Route 25W doesn't have its own article? I am willing to create it if you guys here will help me out. -- ACase0000 ( talk) 15:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the most recent edits on the Illinois Route 31 page? I think there may have been some original research and too many personal opinions added by the editor. I copy-edited the page, but I just don't feel right about the content. Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 03:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a followup to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 21#Arkansas abbreviation. @ Brandonrush: Here's an example from each district of AR or (older) ARK. It's hard to prove a negative, but in my virtual travels around the Pig State I've never seen any sign with Hwy. (which is the more common abbreviation on the AHTD site, so it's probably used internally).
To be clear: I'm proposing a change in abbreviation from "Hwy. X" to "AR X", handled by changing templates and running AWB. -- NE2 03:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I found one instance of "AR HWY 41". -- NE2 15:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Someone made an Interstate 864 page. Can someone take a look and give it a USRD makeover or delete it? Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 23:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
As you can see on http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=List_of_Arkansas_state_highways, there are a bunch of redirects to a nonexistent "State highway spurs" section. (PS: someone cocked up the "Centralized discussion" box up top by adding deletion templates.) -- NE2 23:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Why isn't I-8 on the FA map yet? -- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 20:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Done File:USRD FA map.png Thanks Freddie. — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 01:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to be able to bring an issue of our newsletter to publication by the end of the month. If you have anything that you'd like to write up for it, please visit WP:USRD/NR. I'm going with a deadline on February 26, but please don't wait until the last minute. Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 13:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, all! I just updated the Pennsylvania subsection of the map database with a bunch of new maps I acquired. I converted the list into two tables - split between the PennDOH era and PennDOT era, for the ease of listing PA maps. I added a few notes on PA maps as well.
-- hmich 176 00:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I have finished the GA audit list, and no more routes will be added. If any of your GAs are on this list, please fix the issues soon. Eventually, GARs will take place to resolve the articles that are not fixed. -- Rs chen 7754 23:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Why are the location categories being removed from the articles that I put them on? Shouldn't we put categories for the locations that a road travels through? Even if it is just the road-specific ones, why are the transportation ones being removed? Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 12:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite map}}
template conversionThere is a discussion about the {{
cite map}}
template ongoing at
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#cite map. It is likely that the discussion will result in formatting changes (including some improvements and additional flexibility) to the template, which is used in about 18,000 articles. Your feedback, as frequent users of this template, will be welcome and needed if these changes are to be implemented with the least amount of negative side effects.
Please link to this discussion from Talk pages of other projects that use {{
cite map}}
frequently. Thanks. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
, are already on Lua so this is a natural progression of things. It will speed up rendering/preview times for our articles, especially those with lots of map citations. In the process, I've suggested some changes, the first of which will result in the biggest formatting change while the others are just tweaks. All of these are designed to improve the template and make it more consistent with other CS1 citations.
|agency=
(rare) or the contributions of |others=
(probably only useful for translated versions of maps).|via=
parameter will also work so that we can note that a map was accessed via a third-party source, like Google Books.|mode=cs2
option to make CS1 templates output like the CS2-style {{
citation}}
. Additionally, the templates will check if dates are formatted improperly based on the MOS and flag them for correction. The template will also flag if unsupported parameters are added instead of just skipping them.Seems like we're starting a collection of these, so we'd probably better have this discussion sooner rather than later. Are these really important enough to have articles? If not, what can we do about them? An RCS-style list like we're doing with Texas FMs is appealing—any reason why we shouldn't follow that model? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Since there seems to be broad consensus for this, I went ahead and merged what we've got to List of Montana Secondary Highways. Could probably use some minor cleanup to remove overlinks, etc. In the future if we keep getting them we can split this page into hundred ranges like we've got the FMs set up with. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It may not be a bad idea to hammer out some guidelines while we're on the subject of RCS. – Fredddie ™ 22:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
If you have more ideas for guidelines, please add them. – Fredddie ™ 23:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
How about a couple of brief principles on whether or not a RJL should be included in a section of a RCS list?
The general practice will be to omit the RJLs, but in some situations a case can be made to include one. Imzadi 1979 → 20:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I need to be convinced that we need RJLs in RCS entries at all. Can you all provide me with some examples where this is a good idea and why it is a good idea? The principles above suggest RJLs would be common in RCS lists, which I totally disagree with. V C 19:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I feel this should be moved to something else because it's not a list, but not sure what it should be moved to... -- Rs chen 7754 05:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:BOLD, I moved both articles by dropping the "List of" for now. They can be moved again once the official title of the system is found. In all reality, we should go through and find the official title for all state highway systems so we should know what the overview articles should be titled. Dough 48 72 05:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to throw my two cents at this. I think "<state> State Highway System" (always Highway, never Road or Route) is the best nomenclature in general. That is, unless the state has a specific name for the system (such as
Iowa Primary Highway System,
Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, or
Wisconsin State Trunk Highway System). As for Pennsylvania, I think it should be
Pennsylvania Traffic Route System because it limits the scope of the article to the top three levels. That does not preclude us from including something on the quadrant routes and below in the article, but it would limit us from going in depth; a {{
Main}}
link and a paragraph would be sufficient. I have done something like that in the Iowa article, where there is a section for secondary highways, even though the scope is primary highways. –
Fredddie
™ 01:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Has the NHS URL changed? -- Rs chen 7754 17:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I am happy to announce that the addition of KMLs to all USRD B-Class articles, a project I started last year, is nearly complete. As such, I politely request that if an article is improved to B-Class, a KML is added to it as quickly as possible.
The one B-Class KML remaining is a doozy: U.S. Route 66 in Illinois. There isn't really one specific routing; the route was modified a whole bunch while it still existed. Along with that, the road that US 66 used to follow no longer exists or is closed in some cases, so it's not really something you can find on a map anymore. Do you guys have any suggestions on how this KML should be tackled? Thanks. T C N7JM 20:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll do it from IDOT GIS data. One thing I just noticed: most of old US 66 in IL is still state maintained! -- NE2 04:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I manually fixed the multipart lines. That was really annoying, but now it works on Bing. The Goog of course no longer works, but that's congress. -- NE2 01:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I feel like now is a good time to bring these up in more detail considering we've recently been discussing what to do with roads of questionable note in Montana and Texas. I was patrolling recent changes a little while ago and found that List of quadrant routes in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, was created. I talked to User:Mitchazenia about it on IRC and he told me that quite a few of these lists exist.
I'm not sure we've ever had a discussion on these (if we have, please direct me there), but I wonder what should be done with the Pennsylvania quadrant routes. Pretty much the only ones that are...actually routes are the 1000s-4000s, which are all that most of the lists that existed before today (with one exception) cover. Even then, some of these route designations are nothing more than overpasses or bridges. After the 4000s, the notability gets even more questionable. All of the 8000s are interchanges, and the 9000s consist of, among other things, rest areas and truck escape ramps.
Personally, I'm not sure these routes deserve to be covered in lists. A lot of the routes wouldn't even make sense to include in a routelist, much less an RCS-style list like we're doing with the FM/RM roads in Texas. I think an article on the system might be enough. What say you guys? T C N7JM 21:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@ NE2 – Technically doesn't NY's system of using the internal numbers still count as a system of legislative routes? As for the quadrant route issue. I love Quadrant Routes as much as the next roadgeek (and people used to think I made up the word...) but do we seriously need 67 lists on routes that PennDOT's actually been reducing to bridges in many areas? The most coverage they deserve is in the former traffic routes. Mitch32( I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance) 23:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this needs to be clarified...quadrant routes are not all State Routes 1001-9499; quadrant routes are classified only as the routes numbered 1001-4999. PennDOT's hierarchy is 1) Interstates, 2) US Routes, 3) PA Routes, 4) Quadrant Routes. This specifically excludes the bottom seven classes, because they are all inventory classes. This is why you don't see them on a map such as this. SRs above 4999 should not be included on a list of quadrant routes. -- hmich 176 10:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Can I suggest that we just not make lists of quadrant routes? There are 67 counties in Pennsylvania, which means there will be 67 lists of quadrant routes. It seems like an awful lot of work for such minor, minor roads. New York's coverage of county roads is probably the best example of similarly wasted energies that I see, but I think even then PA's quadrant routes would dwarf NY county roads. I still think the best course of action is a paragraph or two on the state highway system article and calling it good. – Fredddie ™ 11:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Michael J: PennDOT has produced a straight line diagram which indexes all SRs within a county (I linked an example). Lists do exist for all 67 counties. -- hmich 176 10:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
If you're interested in adding pre-1987 legislative route numbers, [3] has every county except Philly. -- NE2 03:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I added history to List of quadrant routes in Adams County, Pennsylvania to show how it can be done. -- NE2 02:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I compiled a list at User talk:Hmich176/Pennsylvania State Route System/List of State Routes in Montour County, Pennsylvania. I also couldn't find 1001, 2004, 2015, or 2018, though I have an educated guess for 2015. -- NE2 03:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you think should be done with Pennsylvania quadrant routes?
I'd like to get a gauge on what we want to do here, then move forward, rather than just have a lot of unfocused discussion which will probably end up leading to nothing. T C N7JM 17:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
For Interstates and U.S. Highways with state-detail articles, are both the national article and S-D article supposed to be in the "Interstate/U.S. Highways in <state>" categories? – Fredddie ™ 17:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This past Saturday, {{ cite map}} was transitioned over to Lua. In the transition, some formatting changes were made to how the template outputs information. A few worth highlighting:
|author=
is defined, the output with start with the title of the map, and the |publisher=
will be listed in the middle of the citation in a more standard location, preceded by |location=<place of publication>
if defined.|sections=
, the value will be preceded by §§, which is the standard abbreviation for sections.|mode=cs2
to any CS1 template using Lua (which is basically all of them now), the output will look like CS2. Templates like {{
Google maps}} should be updated to pass through |mode=
to ensure maximum compatibility in articles.|via=
to indicate the name of the republisher, whether that's Google Books, Wikimedia Commons or someone else.Maps have authors, so one should be listed in a complete citation. In a lot of cases, it's actually the same as the publishing company, so |author=Rand McNally
and |publisher=Rand McNally
would be a correct situation. If it's an official state road map, the first author would be the state agency, but the map could have a second author if Rand McNally, H.M. Gousha or another company did cartography work for the state. This really means that the |cartography=
parameter is not necessary in most cases because we can list as many authors as necessary, separate from the name of the publisher.
Map citations should also be updated to use |sections=
so that §§ will precede the section numbers.
Imzadi 1979
→ 08:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
Bing maps}}
{{
Google maps}}
{{
Illinois road map}}
for road maps from various Illinois state departments{{
cite MDOT map}}
for the MSHD/MDSH/MDSHT/MDOT road maps{{
cite MDOT PRFA}}
for MDOT's Physical Reference Finder Application{{
MoDOT Flex}}
for MoDOT's Flex Map Viewer{{
Ohio road map}}
for OSHD/ODOHPW/ODOH/ODOT road maps{{
Odot control}}
for ODOT control section maps{{
Texas Mapbook }}
for the Texas Mapbook{{
TxDOT map}}
for some maps from TxDOT and its predecessor agencies{{
Yahoo maps}}
Any templates above that are rendered in monospace type on a background
have been updated to have authors specified, the inclusion of a |sections=
parameter and probably the |mode=
parameter as well. If there are any other state- or source-specific templates used by USRD, please add them, and please update the list when any have been modified.
Imzadi 1979
→ 08:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI, an alternative newspaper for southern Utah has scanned some pages from a 1934 Shell atlas. These scans would be of more interest to Utah highway editors, but they also scanned a page that has Reno, Nevada and one that shows most of US 66's routing through Arizona. Maybe we could contact them about scanning the whole thing? http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/blog/2015/03/20/poking-through-the-ruins-14-1934-shell-highway-map-of-utah/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moabdave ( talk • contribs)
Can someone from the project take a look at the map on Tennessee State Route 475? It looks exactly like a map on Interstate-guide.com. Is this plagiarism? If so, can an allowable map be put in its place? Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) ( talk) 22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Different question, is it really cancelled if I-475 was never requested to AASHTO? I only ask because I've been reversing edits to a somewhat similar issue in regards to Business I-85 as cancelled I-685, which was never endorsed by SCDOT nor requested. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 02:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
For the last year or so, the U.S. Roads Portal has been neglected by all of us. With monthly article, picture and DYK selections, the portal might be requiring too much regular participation to be viable for a project of our size, so it might be wise to switch it to a new format. Instead of monthly submissions, the portal could instead use a predetermined set of rotating articles, pictures and facts that can be refreshed using {{ purge}}, similar to how the Maryland Roads portal is laid out. In doing so, users can nominate and submit content without a set deadline, allowing for spikes in activity to translate to permanent growth and maintenance. Sounder Bruce 01:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I've done the SA and SP for this month but haven't done the DYK out of not having any ideas, having used all the hooks at WP:USRD/DYK. At this point, I feel we can still nominate the SA and SP every month but maybe should look into automating the DYK hooks as I am out of ideas unless other editors suggest stuff. Another idea is to recycle past DYK hooks and mix them up. I would like to see what we can do for the portal DYK this month. Dough 4872 02:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
While not exactly an RfC, I would like some input on an issue brought up by myself regarding information about the Oppritunity Corridor on the Interstate 490 (Ohio) page. If you would like to weigh in on this discussion, please put your input at Talk:Interstate 490 (Ohio)#Oppritunity Corridor. Thank you. Pyrotle {T/ C} 02:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Why are we jumping the gun on this? Why is there a separate article for Interstate 44 (North Carolina–Virginia)? Why are we favoring one proposed number over the other (44 over 50)? Can't we just merge the article with Interstate 495 (North Carolina) until the final number is settled? -- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 03:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 26#Category:Named state highways in Oregon -- NE2 11:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I started Draft:Glossary of road transport terms. Feel free to fill in where you see fit. – Fredddie ™ 16:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, just wanted to let you all know that there has been a proposal to merge Interstate 44 (North Carolina–Virginia) into Interstate 495 (North Carolina). Please share your opinion on this proposal. Thank you. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 22:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I was looking at this page specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_133 and wondering what was the local street name of a particular section of that highway as I believe such roads can change from town to town. If you notice, there's a table with a "notes" section so I'm wondering if adding local road names as a highway passes through various towns would be worthy of consideration. Or if its just *one* road name the whole length, maybe that could be emphasized right at the start. Thanks. -- uronlydreaming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uronlydreaming ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Help! I changed the junctions in the infobox of Interstate 10 to show the national-level articles instead of state-specific ones. However, at least one anonymous user keeps reverting my change. What can be done about that? Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) ( talk) 21:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Talk:Interstate 755 (Mississippi) about what should be done with Interstate 755 (Mississippi) and Interstate 755 (Missouri). Could USRD weigh in on this?
Also, someone made an Interstate 570 page. Is this valid? Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) ( talk) 21:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There was recently a construction accident on Washington State Route 410 where a chunk of concrete fell off a bridge onto the road below, resulting in three deaths. There is some question as to whether this is worth of inclusion in the article. Please comment at Talk:Washington State Route 410#Bridge accident. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 00:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this list viable? Draft:List of state highways in Polk County, Texas. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It's still being developed, but I wonder if this could be useful (see the map on the demo page). -- Rs chen 7754 01:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Last year, I compiled a PDF document of several different documents produced by the Maryland State Highway Administration and its predecessor agencies and available at the Maryland State Archives. The compilation includes handwritten lists of highway projects—handwritten by employees at SHA/SRC, not by me—and opening dates. I would like to be able to use this compilation document as a cited reference; using the compilation document instead of each individual document in the state archives would save the trouble of needing to make references to 30 different documents. Is this something any of you have done before? Even if the answer is no, I would appreciate help working through any problems with this approach and creating a citation template to cite this document or the original constituent documents. The compilation document is linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maryland/Resources#Road Construction Progress Log Book. V C 17:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Category:Infobox road maps for Wikidata migration I created this category yesterday so we know how many maps need to be migrated over to Wikidata. Ideally, there should be a bot that can do this for us, right? – Fredddie ™ 22:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
|map=
to the infobox. Someone should work on completing the status tables over there. -
happy
5214 03:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
As tomorrow (Sunday) is the last day of May, and we are scheduled to publish the Spring 2015 quarterly issue of The Centerline in May, this is the last call for content. I will will publish the newsletter before midnight UTC tomorrow so that it gets a May timestamp on delivery. Please add your submissions in the newsroom. Imzadi 1979 → 02:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm hoping to get the audit completed soon (well over 2 years after it started). Next weekend I'll start sending articles to GAR, or fixing it myself if possible. If there are some articles that you have fixed but are still on the list, please let me know. -- Rs chen 7754 20:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
[4] might be of some use for notable accidents where the NTSB investigated. -- Rs chen 7754 16:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
New Jersey Route 185, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- Rs chen 7754 23:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
New Jersey Route 181, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- Rs chen 7754 04:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Saginaw Trail, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- Rs chen 7754 04:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
We last restructured our WikiProject pages in 2012, so it's probably time for some housekeeping, so that the project spaces help us to write content, and so that newcomers can find what they need to more easily.
I plan to go through some more pages later, but here's some thoughts to start with:
Thoughts? -- Rs chen 7754 04:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The plurality of states use the convention WikiProject U.S. Roads/Redirects/Statename for their redirect lists. Should we move forward with moving the redirect lists that do not follow that format to that format? V C 23:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
An IP is insisting on merging the article into Interstate 76 in Pennsylvania. Any thoughts? -- Rs chen 7754 03:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
See Interstate 90 in Ohio - majority of article refers to the Ohio Turnpike and the remainder is the portion in the Cleveland area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.81.116 ( talk) 14:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Something more radical: How about we remove both of the state-detail articles (Pennsylvania and Ohio) in favor of the articles on the specific named portions of I-76? The I-76 article would use summary style for the Ohio Turnpike, Pennsylvania Turnpike, and Schuylkill Expressway, which together make up 85 percent of the length of the Interstate, and the 60 miles of I-76 west of the Ohio Turnpike and the 3 miles in New Jersey would be covered in depth in the main article. The biggest problem I foresee is how to do the Exit list(s), but a full Exit list likely would not exceed 100 rows. V C 23:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings either way about merging Schuylkill with I-76 but am leaning against. What I will say is that the current organization of the 4 overlapping topics Interstate 76 in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Turnpike, Interstate 276 (Pennsylvania) and Schuylkill Expressway is logical from a historical perspective, but not from a modern perspective. As has been noted above, it's a complex situation, and there is no way (that I'm aware of) to organize this into articles that is both consistent and doesn't have mostly redundant articles. I would change my vote in a heartbeat if someone presents an argument that the status quo is causing too many template breaks, or special case code to handle. Dave ( talk) 20:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems that we need to change any citations to them... [7] -- Rs chen 7754 02:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
There's 3 articles remaining in the GA audit dating from 2010. I took a look at fixing them, but they're a bit beyond the amount of time that I have, and the nominators are unable to fix the issues or are inactive. Rather than having to delist, I thought I'd bring them here first:
Thanks! -- Rs chen 7754 18:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
poke - Floydian τ ¢ 02:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 1 in Pennsylvania#Roosevelt Blvd. Dough 4872 23:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Ohio State Route 300, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- Rs chen 7754 04:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Talk:U.S. Route 6#US 6/20 is the longest continuous highway Dave ( talk) 18:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
As suggested at Template talk:Attached KML, the KML creation tutorial might be better suited in the Help namespace – something like Help:KML tutorial. The range of articles that do or could have an attached KML file is much greater than the scope of USRD, HWY, or any individual wikiproject. What do project members think of this idea? - Evad37 [ talk 02:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The following articles are GAs, but I feel they are of questionable notability:
An earlier discussion (somewhere in the archives) concluded that most Texas FM roads should be handled WP:USRD/RCS style, in most cases (but not if the road has enough information to stand alone). The question here, then, is whether these are notable enough for their own article. -- Rs chen 7754 04:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a formal notification that I have started the above review to make sure the article is up to the latest standards. -- Rs chen 7754 18:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned about this article's GA status. While it is reliably sourced (even though the links are dead, they can be fixed), the history is almost entirely sourced to the National Bridge Inventory, which to me is akin to sourcing to maps. Which is usually allowed for GAs, but GAs entirely sourced to maps are looked on with suspicion. It's usually considered passable if it's a short route with little information in newspapers – but that is certainly not the case for a 2 digit Interstate. Thoughts? -- Rs chen 7754 00:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll skip the usual boilerplate templates from now on, but the above went to GAR. -- Rs chen 7754 05:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I feel this is getting out of control. I didn't even know where Valdosta was until I clicked on the template, but apparently we have one for that "metropolitan area". Do we need them for Peoria? Pine Bluff? This is concerning. -- Rs chen 7754 06:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Categories for individual counties have little function when searching for roads in a entire metropolitan statistical area. Molandfreak ( talk) 07:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think a distinction should be made between those like {{ Highways in the Capital District, New York}} that list all state highways and those like {{ Expressways in Greater Orlando}} that have only expressways (and in this case it also serves to group CFX roads, and was originally at {{ OOCEA}} (CFX's old name)). -- NE2 07:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
PS: how many fucking boxes would go on Great River Road? -- NE2 07:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
At least 90 percent of these templates need to go. Which one should we start with? V C 02:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete per above discussion. Famous river crossings in a particular area (which are basically the features that appeal to me about these sort of templates) can be handled in a similar fashion to the Mississippi River crossings. -- Molandfreak ( talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's been a couple weeks since we decided to send most of these off to TfD. Since then, the Valdosta template has been deleted, and it appears as if the Lubbock template will be deleted as well. My question now is, where do we go from here? Do we send a bunch of the templates for smaller metros at once in a group deletion request, or should we send one or two more individually first? Also, at what point in population/importance of metro area do we stop sending the templates to deletion requests? Thoughts? T C N7JM 19:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I looked through the remaining templates to see if any of them would make sense to send in the first small group, and I think I found a pretty good starter pack. There are three for random, small metros in Arkansas -- {{ Roads of Fort Smith}}, {{ Roads of Hot Springs}} and {{ Roads in Jonesboro}} -- that are essentially the same template for different metros, and aren't too much different from the one that's already been deleted and the one that will be deleted soon. Would anyone oppose me shipping these three off to TfD once the Lubbock discussion closes? T C N7JM 06:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Georgia templates minus Atlanta on deck. That's {{ Athens, Georgia highways}}, {{ Augusta, Georgia highways}}, {{ Columbus, Georgia highways}}, {{ Macon, Georgia highways}} and {{ Savannah, Georgia highways}}. Speak now or forever hold your peace. T C N7JM 15:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The next batch is up. My intent with this one was to get precedent for metros that cover more than one state (just to be safe). The discussion is here. Included are {{ Quad Cities Roads}}, {{ Twin ports roads}}, {{ Roads of Northwest Arkansas}} and {{ Roads of Texarkana}}. I think this is probably the last smaller batch we'll have to send. After this, I think we should start sending them in larger groups. T C N7JM 04:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
So, what's next? I vote {{ Unbuilt New Jersey Highways}} and {{ Puerto Rico Highways}}, probably the least needed of what's left. -- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 00:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Ahh shoot, TFD is backlisted again. Any updates on what to send? -- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 23:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I jump-started this process by nominating {{ Highways in the Capital District, New York}}, {{ Annapolis, Maryland Roads}}, {{ Baton Rouge Highways}}, {{ Metro Birmingham expressways}}, {{ Peoria expressways}}, {{ Providence freeways}}, {{ Tulsa Area Highways}}, and {{ SLC highways}}. This set of templates is being discussed at here. V C 04:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I nominated eight more templates for deletion: {{ Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex}}, {{ Metro Detroit Freeways}}, {{ Denver highways}}, {{ Atlanta expressways}}, {{ Baltimore Metropolitan Area Roads}}, {{ Boston Road Transportation}}, {{ Chicagoland expressways}}, and {{ Cleveland freeways}}. Opine at the discussion. V C 01:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I plan to send several more templates for deletion this week. However, I wanted to point out the templates that I do not plan to send for deletion. Those four involve streets of a particular city, so the linked content of those navboxen should be under the jurisdiction of WikiProject U.S. Streets. They are {{ Streets in Los Angeles}}, {{ Streets of Manhattan}}, {{ Streets in San Francisco}}, and {{ Streets in Washington, DC}}. I did not include {{ Dallas Streets}} in this list because it is tiny and includes several state highways. For these four streets templates, I suggest we create a new category, find another appropriate category, or just remove these templates from the metro area highway templates categories. V C 01:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This time, I nominated a series of metropolitan freeway templates for deletion: {{ Tampa Bay Freeways and Tollways}}, {{ Houston freeways}}, {{ LA Freeways}}, {{ Metro Charlotte expressways}}, {{ Milwaukee freeways}}, {{ NJ Expressways}}, {{ Expressways in Greater Orlando}}, and {{ Phoenix-area freeways}}. Contribute to the discussion. V C 01:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is no standard guide as to what exactly should and should not be put into the notes column on junctions lists. The description on WP:RJL#Standard columns seems open ended, and it is unclear what can be considered standard practice now. Otherwise, you get misunderstandings like this, for example, where User:Imzadi1979 reverted my edits where I removed something that I thought was not standard. And it is unclear if this standard practice should be added uniformly across all the other relevant junctions on that major junctions list. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 06:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Is I 86 supposed to eventually at the Thruway or at I 84? The article says it will end at I 87, but there is no source. I found a sign at the NY 17 cloverleaf with I 84 that was a covered blue shield with the word "end" above it. The mileage markers after it going towards the Thruway show NY 17 on the marker, not I 86. Anyone have any idea what this means? PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 23:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC) I did find this link for the entire project. [10] PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 23:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Draft:WV Route 2 and I-68 Authority has been submitted to AFC, your opinion about the acceptability, or otherwise, of the submission would be appreciated. Please comment on the draft's talk page if you do not wish to do a full AFC review. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This message board posting had links to many issues of California Highways and Public Works, some of which may be useful for editors in other states. An early AASHO policy related to numbering U.S. Highways is located in the October 1937 issue on pages 13 and 28, for instance. The issues are hosted on part of Archive.org, so they're likely permanent. Imzadi 1979 → 09:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I've been looking at Minnesota's route log lately and I noticed something curious about the I-494/I-694 beltway. Mile Zero is at the Hennepin–Dakota County line near MSP Airport and it travels clockwise. When I-494 reaches I-694, the mileposts do not change, which is similar to how I-35E continues with I-35's mileposts.
I don't really have any details worked out, such as what we'd call the article, so, I'm not necessarily proposing a merger of the two Interstates at this time, but I'd like to gauge support for such a merger. – Fredddie ™ 04:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't Merge. There's a reason that 494 and 694 are separate routes. I-494 is an inner-[greatly populated] suburb beltway, while 694 is a legitimate bypass of MSP.-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Since AA is not picking this up. Talk:Maryland Route 61#Requested move 30 July 2015. Dough 4872 13:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
After having created a formal list at List of county routes in Erie County, New York, I have nominated the RCS-style lists for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of county routes in Erie County, New York (1–32). Mitch32( The best ideas are common property.) 17:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
If you like taking pictures for USRD or Wikipedia in general, there is a short interview about taking pictures at the Newsletter's newsroom page. The more responses I get the better the piece will be. – Fredddie ™ 13:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Category:Interstate 805, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Category:Three-digit Interstate Highways, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Auxiliary Interstate Highways. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
See here. Comments? Mapsax ( talk) 19:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 18#Template:Washington metropolitan area roads. Dough 4872 03:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily talking about story ideas, but what can we do to freshen up the newsletter, and maybe make it less of a chore to put together? Here are a few things I was thinking about:
{{
Divbox}}
or something like it to break up stories with little DYK-type snippetsI can put together a mockup of the current Newsletter to show you what I'm talking about. – Fredddie ™ 01:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Category:Three-digit U.S. Highways, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Auxiliary U.S. Highways. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Currently we have Category:Three-digit U.S. Highways that runs afoul of WP:SHAREDNAME. In an earlier nomination, we changed Category:Three-digit Interstate Highways to Category:Auxiliary Interstate Highways to reflect why that category is defining. This category should either be renamed to something else to reflect what is actually being grouped in the category or--if there really is nothing in common other than the name--the category should be merged to Category:Bannered and suffixed U.S. Highways or Category:U.S. Highway System.
With Category:Three-digit U.S. Highways, I thought using the same approach would be non-controversial but there is actually a very clear consensus not to rename it to "auxiliary" per this CFD:
CFD Discussion
|
---|
Category:Three-digit U.S. Highways
|
Question Let me take two steps back here: Is there a different rename for this category that would describe the roads without relying on their names and wouldn't be redundant with Category:Bannered and suffixed U.S. Highways? RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Now that I've had a little while to think about it,
Category:U.S. Highway System should list the same articles that are in {{
U.S. Routes}}
, which are the two-digit mainlines plus the oddballs like US 412. From there, there would be subcategories for each route that has or had a three-digit branch, i.e.
U.S. Route 701 would be in
Category:U.S. Route 1. After that, the three-digit category can be removed entirely as it's not a defining feature. –
Fredddie
™ 23:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
As some of you may now (from IRC chat), I came out as transgender in February 2014. Due to this, my gender dysphoria has hit me so hard lately. In addition, the United States Navy's prohibition of open transgender service (makes me have to be totally a guy at work) until they lift the ban or I get out in March 2016 (whichever comes first), has caused me to become severely depressed. Therefore, I have retreated inside of me and stayed in Facebook too much, and I have neglected my editing "duties".
In other news, on Friday, September 25, I was involved in a car accident. My air bag scraped me and hit my nose. I might be taking more of a back seat to things on here. I really think I will be going for counseling soon. I hope no one is angry with me for revealing these things, or for using this page as a medium to inform y'all. That is exactly what I was trying to do: informing the WikiProject as to what was happening with me. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) ( talk) 02:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Quite to my surprise, a week ago another user at Commons nominated for featured picture there this picture I took along NY 199 in northeastern Dutchess County almost a year ago, to replace an earlier picture taken at almost the same location with an inferior camera. To my even bigger surprise, it passed unanimously, making it only my second FP at Commons.
Looking around, I see that this is only the third Commons FP of an American road after this and this one. More important to this project, it seems to be the first one taken by an American, and the first by a USRD participating editor. So I guess I feel proud of myself (Yes, I thought it was good enough to nominate for FP myself at some point; just hadn't gotten there yet).
I suppose I'll be nominating it for FP here at some point soon, to go along with the Route 66 pic which shares that honor. Keep an eye out for it there. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
See here. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
See above. -- Rs chen 7754 22:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
G'day everyone, just coming in out of the cold for a little while at least, since the 10th anniversary of WP:USRD has brought the project to the fore in my mind and I'm without a fair number of my other commitments right now. I'm currently visiting the United States, although I fly back to Australia next Monday; but, I hope to reside in the US permanently a year from now. With that said, I've looked over some of the articles I've edited in the Miami area (i.e. the majority of my contributions) and I've noticed a few changes that I'd just like to question for some clarification before I attempt to do any more editing:
Thanks for your help, folks, and I look forward to editing once more. - DyluckTRocket ( talk) 22:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
As most should know already, Yahoo! shut down their mapping service earlier this year in June. That means every article using {{ yahoo maps}} as a source has a dead link that can't be replaced with an archived copy. I've gone through the list of transclusions and eliminated the non-USRD uses, but that still leaves a little over 300 articles where the site is in use, assuming all links are using the template.
Can we get a few editors to pitch in some time to swap out Yahoo! Maps citations for ones using another mapping service? If we all picked a couple of articles a day, we could have everything switched in a week or so. Then we could have the template deleted and move forward without it. Imzadi 1979 → 22:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
There is an issue with the Junction list on Tennessee State Route 319. I have tried to fix it but nothing works. -- ACase0000 ( talk) 03:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Do we consider these notable enough for their own article? The articles in question are Texas Park Road 2, Texas Park Road 3, and Texas Park Road 30.
@ A Texas Historian: Rs chen 7754 22:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I know this is not USRD, but most of us have the editing skills to work on articles north of the border. Ontario Highway 48 is currently at GAN and is on hold for mostly minor issues. However, the nominator has been inactive for the past two months, and it would help if other editors would be willing to step in and fix the issues. The review is at Talk:Ontario Highway 48/GA1. Dough 4872 01:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone's objecting to my inclusion of future exit numbers for Massachusetts. Can someone make it so I can change the column titles current and future or something? -- NE2 17:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
So when I was cranking out some KMLs this afternoon, I noticed nine stubs in the Arkansas category that pertain to segments of old highways in Arkansas that are on the National Register of Historic Places. As all of them are no longer maintained by the state, the only claim of notability for each seems to be that it is included on the NRHP. This, to me, seems not enough for each segment to warrant its own article. In my opinion, the nine of them should be combined into a single listicle, if not just deleted outright. What do others think should be done with these pages?
For reference, the articles in question are Old Arkansas 22, Old Arkansas 51, Old US 67 and the Old US 71 segments at Ashdown, Greenland, Jenny Lind, the Little River approach, Ogden and Wilton. While composing this request for comments, I noticed redirects for a few other similar segments: Old Arkansas 2, Old Arkansas 11 and another segment of Old US 67. Yet more of them may be out there unbeknownst to me. Any thoughts on these either? T C N7JM 03:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Question regarding Welcome Centers and possibly Rest Areas. Got a case where a user in the past added a Welcome Center in an Interstate exit list, do we simply remove them? Also do we note about them anywhere on the article if we so choose? This has probably been asked before, but just need clarification from the current group. Thank you. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 14:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I've closed the User:Rschen7754/USRD GA audit. The few remaining articles that need to be fixed are issues that are arguably borderline in terms of the audit scope.
Now that it has closed, how do we make sure that our GAs retain their quality, going forward? Especially as we get closer to 1000, and as I'm getting busier in real life, I'm no longer able to conduct such a thorough audit like I did the last few years. -- Rs chen 7754 22:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC) (postscript: or really, for any one person to do, even if they are very active, as we get more and more GAs. -- Rs chen 7754 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC))
Different question, I want to break out the Tennessee article for Interstate 26, but it is completely overlapped with U.S. Route 23 (which also doesn't have its own article) and continues another three miles into the next state. I believe the reason why neither have a Tennessee article yet because is nobody know how best way to do this. Is there any examples where to highways share the same article in similar circumstance? What would be the best way to handle this? -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 15:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Made first attempt of the new U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee article page. Yes, it is a work in progress, but if you want to go ahead and make corrections and/or think this will not work for a redirect of I-26 in Tennessee, now is the time to review. Thanks. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 00:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The junction list "county" needs to be removed as the city of Bristol, Virginia is an independent city (meaning it is not apart of any county). I tried to fix it but couldn't. -- ACase0000 ( talk) 03:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
|county=Washington
and |location=Bristol
, you have to use |indep_city=Bristol
. Easy. –
Fredddie
™ 13:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I want to split off U.S. Route 33 in Ohio into its own article instead of a redirect. I have a junction list at User:TenPoundHammer/sandbox and would like some help in adding the mileages and other relevant information. I'd also like to know how the SR 691 south / SR 78 east exit is signed since Google Street View went through before that exit was open. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey folks, there's a risk of a reversion war breaking out between another editor and myself on Florida State Road 997 as to the legitimacy, significance and verifiability of what to include in the article's RJL. My version of the RJL leaves out a lot of material that is included on the other editor's version. I would like to seek third party opinions, please, on how to best proceed on the article's talk page here. - DyluckTRocket ( talk) 08:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
We probably have enough snippets in our Portal news archive that we could create an "On this day" section. I don't believe that there are 366 days of content, so it can be set up to show only when there is content available. I think that if we do this, we should expand each snippet to give the reader a little more context. Any thoughts? – Fredddie ™ 21:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems the five-year transportation funding bill signed into law this month has given new life to this long-moribund proposal. The congressionally designated corridor now extends into western Texas roughly following US 190.
Fortguy ( talk) 22:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was going to do a partial revert on htis edit as its an invalid shield.. However I suspect the edit should be a full revert. Thought I'd flag it for you guys to look at. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 13:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
We have 314 classes remaining to make one of our goals for 2015. It seems like a lot, but merging TX FM road articles into RCS lists is probably the easiest way to do this, since it is on average 4 classes per merger (which takes about 5 minutes each). That comes out to merging away 80 of those articles.
There's more information at Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S. Roads/Texas/FM completion list if you're interested. -- Rs chen 7754 21:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
On U.S. Route 411 it says that the route has no 2nd terminus and that: "Tennessee signs the south end at I-40 northeast of Greeneville". I-40 isn't northeast of Greeneville. And it would be the north. The correct northern terminus is at US-25W/US-70/I-40 in Newport, Tennessee.
I'd fix it myself but I just wanted to see what you all think. -- ACase0000 ( talk) 02:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Would TDOT's maps Etc. Be useful? -- ACase0000 ( talk) 04:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
With the push to get road maps on templates, I think now would be a good time to get Pennsylvania done as the state recently changed the URL to the maps. The historical road maps posted online by PennDOT are here. In addition, we should probably also create templates for the county Type 10 maps. The current county maps are here while some of the historic county maps are here. Dough 4872 00:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
See Draft:Interstate 84 in Pennsylvania, Draft:U.S. Route 231 in Tennessee and Draft:U.S. Route 287 in Oklahoma. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Why does I-84 have four state-detail articles? I didn't think the entire route was long enough to merit splitting. – Fredddie ™ 19:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
In general, I'd support either running with separate state-level subarticles or merging everything together for one reason. If there were an elegant solution, I'd withdraw this personal reservation. If split up, table-based exit lists would exist only on the state-level articles, and the national-level article would have a simpler "bulleted"-style list. This is the situation with Interstate 75 and Interstate 75 in Michigan, et al. If there were not separate articles, then the table-based list would be in the national-level article, as in U.S. Route 8. These should be mutually exclusive options for consistency.
Let's assume that some states get subarticles and some do not. OK, so each state with a subarticle receives a full table-based exit list, and the national-level article has the simplified list. So what of the states we deem should not have subarticles? If a table-based exit list for that state would essentially consist of the termini within that state, then I see no harm in omitting a table someplace. However, if that hypothetical table contains more than "essentially just the termini", then we have an issue of due weight in our treatment of the topic across the collection of articles. Of course we do have the situations where a highway dips into and back out of a state, and in those cases like I-49 in TX or I-24 in GA, we've merged that minor amount of state-level content into another state-level article.
Ok, the summary: in the case of I-84 in MA, I think we have too long of an exit list to warrant not including it someplace. It would be inconsistent to use the summary-style list for the other three states in the national I-84 article and drop a table for MA at the end. In other cases though, such a single-state exit list might be simple enough to not require a full table someplace. Imzadi 1979 → 14:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I noticed across Virginia road articles that a mix of "State Route X" and "Virginia State Route X" were used for the article title in the lead. According to WP:USSH, "State Route X" is the official name while "Virginia State Route X" is to be used for article titles. In that case, we need to change the instances using "Virginia State Route X" to "State Route X". Would someone be willing to do an AWB run to fix this? Dough 4872 04:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
it would be great if someone could fix the duplicate location parameter errors (to see, view in preview mode) in
thank you. Frietjes ( talk) 17:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Some of the auxiliary Interstate navboxes list business routes in each state. I've been adding them to others for consistency, but I don't know if they should be included at all since they aren't the same thing as 3DIs. Sure, they're "auxiliary," but do they really have the same importance as a 3DI child Interstate?-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Noting that I have started the above discussion. Your feedback is welcome. -- Rs chen 7754 20:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Massachusetts plans to replace exit numbers from sequential-based to milepost-based in the next few years. Didn't we agree that the exit lists should remain the old numbers until signage changes are completed? Recent changes were made to Interstate 84 in Massachusetts and Interstate 91. Are we getting ahead of ourselves? Chinissai ( talk) 14:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Talk:List of U.S. Highways in South Carolina#Missing highways about the missing entries for the page. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) ( talk) 05:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed a number of recent random edits to junction lists by 2601:202:201:34c2:e9c7:c8a9:ce15:6bb2 ( talk). These seem to be adding somewhat irrelevant long-distance destinations. I reverted a couple, but thought others should be aware. -- LJ ↗ 19:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Well, it's hard to believe, but 2015 will mark 10 years of the USRD project. To this end, there are three conversations that I want to start at this time.
Our last major vision planning was in 2012, when we gained some new editors, deployed KMLs and Lua, expanded to other WMF wikis, and consolidated into one nationwide project.
One thing that comes to mind is that we need new editors. We need people to do both the stub->start and KML improvements, to do the heavy lifting of writing FAs, to do reviewing at all venues (GAN, ACR, FAC, and now FLC), and to maintain our template infrastructure and our project space pages locally and on other wikis. A lot of our more "experienced" editors are going to be hitting the 10 year mark this next year, and we need to raise up the next generation of road editors.
Speaking for myself, I haven't been around as much as I wanted to be this year, both due to real-life matters, and due to other Wikimedia responsibilities. While I am reevaluating what other Wikimedia responsibilities I will continue with next year, I know that I won't be around as much as I used to be as I continue into my mid-twenties (as is the story of many editors who started when they were teenagers, finished college, and are now coming into this next stage of their lives). Some others of us are starting to come into similar situations as well.
So, all this to say... as we come up on 10 years, where do we want to be as a project 3-5 years from now? -- Rs chen 7754 04:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Coming back to this discussion after a few days... I feel like there's this tension between what we "should" be working on and what we actually are interested in working on. The reason I feel that the US 66 goal is failing is because while it's our most popular article, nobody really is interested in tackling the monolith; we'd rather do articles in our own states because that's what we know.
So the question is, how do we overcome this? Is there a way to reconcile the two and find a happy medium? -- Rs chen 7754 04:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Another question that should be asked is how to handle the remainder of our 2014 goals. So far, we have not made much progress on either US 66 or the featured lists, and are a significant ways off from finishing the B-class goal, with only 2 months remaining. What should we do about this? -- Rs chen 7754 04:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
With both of the above subsections in mind, what should be our goals for 2015? -- Rs chen 7754 04:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I feel like I have to agree on the ambition problem. Some of us haven't been intentionally inactive (computer fail) but there seems to be a lot less interest in the last 4 months or so. Mitch32( The imitator dooms himself to hopeless mediocrity.) 18:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
What about something like this? Some sort of usual content-related goals, but there are constraints as to the editors. For example, say the goal was getting 100 GAs, we would say that 10% had to be from a "new editor". -- Rs chen 7754 21:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that we should keep the US 66 goal, but reform it or subdivide it so that it's more appealing to work on. Like, maybe we work on the KMLs, RJLs, and RDs and bring everything up to C-class one year and finish the job the next, or divide it by states, or something like that. Right now, we have an impossible task that nobody wants to do because 1) one person can't do it all and 2) if one person works on California, let's say, there's no guarantee that the other states will be done by anybody and on December 31, the goal still fails. -- Rs chen 7754 03:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as the FL goal, I don't think 12 FLs is very attainable, because let's face it: neither ACR nor FLC can handle that strain. I would rather do something like converting everything to templates, or a certain percentage. As far as the concerns regarding it being an objective, we did something similar for 2012 as a goal and it worked really well. -- Rs chen 7754 06:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
We have about 940 GAs; what if we made a goal to get 1000 GAs by the end of 2015? Or is that too low, considering that we've done over 100 in a year before? -- Rs chen 7754 03:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Just an idea: How about getting the class of all articles, or a specified number, in the list of popular pages to at least C, these are the pages people are most interested in, so it would be nice to make them into nice articles. TheWombatGuru ( talk) 14:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps c:COM:USRD and d:WD:USRD should have their own set of goals, as not everyone at USRD works at those two projects... -- Rs chen 7754 19:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
What about a stub drive? Now, I know it's not as exciting as it used to be, but it *does* get new editors involved. And I know that the stubs remaining aren't as easy as the ones already done... but, it's been over 2 years since the last stub drive, and we've gained a few hundred stubs, at least. -- Rs chen 7754 04:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, we should probably start deciding what the goals will be this week... in a few days I'll try and figure out what the top 4-5 are and then we can narrow it down. -- Rs chen 7754 02:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, here were the ideas that received some level of support. Thoughts? In a few days I'll come back and propose a set of goals and we can do some final discussion, so that we have goals before the newsletter comes out... -- Rs chen 7754 06:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree US 66 should get some attention in improvement, but I think we should combine it with the popular pages goal listed below. Dough 48 72 01:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree we should try to get all our lists converted to the routelist templates next year, even taking a few to FLC (though we need not make a goal to get a certain amount of FLs). Dough 48 72 01:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a better approach for this goal would be to have complete lists and implement the Michigan Plan, but I fear there's not a great way to quantify this. -- Rs chen 7754 06:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Somehow I don't think the routelist templates will work for Kentucky. -- NE2 04:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC) |
This sounds like a cool idea, but I don't know if it should necessarily take priority as a main goal. It can always remain as an interesting statistic we keep track of and can be a "unofficial" goal. Dough 48 72 01:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
|
I like this goal and I think we can realistically attain it as long as we have enough people that can review at ACR. Dough 48 72 01:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
|
I agree we should give our articles on our more important highways (such as I-80, I-95, US 1, and US 66) along with list and highway system articles more attention. The US 66 goal discussed above should be rolled into the popular pages goal, with the concepts proposed for the US 66 goal expanded to include other important highways as to provide a more national drive for improving important roads. Dough 48 72 01:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of trying to clean up all of the various national-detail articles the best though. As has been said, many of them are on the PP list, and they all kinda suck. It shouldn't be hard to get the RDs and RJLs hammered into shape. The RJL for a national IH/USH article that has subarticles is just a variation on a bulleted list, so they're even easier to do than a full RJL table. History sections might be more difficult since that would really require the ability to summarize the most major details out of the state-detail articles, or the option to research the major changes for the whole route. That said, as long as we could pinpoint when the highway was created, any major extensions or truncations, that should be enough for a national History. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Clear support for 1000 or 1010 (1010 was what we wrote in the newsletter). -- Rs chen 7754 17:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This sounds like a good metric-based goal that can work to provide for overall improvement of articles across all assessment classes in all states. Dough 48 72 01:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
These currently extant routes redirect to the main article, but other states on the same route do not.
-- NE2 16:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I just read about https://newspapers.library.in.gov/, which is a newspaper archive covering the years 1840 to 1922. If anybody wants to sift through it, I'm sure there are articles on the formation, implementation, etc. of the original state highway system, the details of which could be incorporated into a History section on List of State Roads in Indiana. [Was going to post at that article's talk page but figured it'd be more visible here] Mapsax ( talk) 18:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that two welcome center were added to the Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania exit list. I thought it was against policy to include rest areas and welcome centers in exit lists unless they were service plazas located along toll roads. I know Pennsylvania Turnpike has its service plazas included in the exit list. I was wondering whether or not we should include rest areas and welcome centers in the exit lists of non-tolled freeways. Dough 48 72 02:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
If I can "vote" here, I'm all for removing regular rest areas from toll-free highways. I can go with service areas on toll roads. Welcome centers, I'd drop as well. Imzadi 1979 → 05:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with including them, and have seen no valid arguments against them here. There are few enough that they won't overwhelm the list unless there are even fewer interchanges. {{ jctrestarea}} (a redirect to jctbridge) works perfectly. -- NE2 06:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I prefer that we not put rest areas in exit lists. If we do put them in exit lists, we should limit them to service areas (food and fuel). Also, because the exit list has a quantitative function, can we require that they only be included if we have a mileage point for the service area? V C 13:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing mixed opinions on this manner. Do you think we should take a straw poll to decide how rest areas should be handled in prose and exit list and whatever gets the most votes be implemented into WP:USRD/STDS? Dough 48 72 22:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, here is a straw poll of options:
Feel free to add any more options I may have missed. Dough 48 72 22:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Since consensus seems to be mixed, other than mentioning that rest areas should be covered in some form, do you think we should do a runoff and vote for the top two options? Dough 48 72 18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
it would be great if someone could double check that this is the correct fix for the duplicate args. Frietjes ( talk) 19:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
These two article were both created and promoted to GA status within the past week (they were listed as "Engineering and technology good article" for GA nomination). They are 0.3mi and 6.5mi respectively and both articles are very short. It doesn't seem like they meet the notability guidelines, but there would be a conflict of interest if I nominated them for deletion, so perhaps someone here can have a look and judge these. AHeneen ( talk) 14:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
"MS [number] is not included as a part of the National Highway System (NHS), a network of highways identified as being most important for the economy, mobility and defense of the nation." Whoa, really? Bloody padding.
There's definitely a completeness issue - just because it's not on state maps from 1967 to 1998 doesn't mean it didn't exist. -- NE2 17:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@ AHeneen: I take a slightly different opinion here than some of my colleagues. Using my home state as an example, we have Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, an indisputably notable topic unto itself. However, per WP:SIZE, that article cannot include all of the information on the system, so we spin off List of Interstate Highways in Michigan. Even then, we cannot include all of the information a proper treatment of each Interstate Highway in the state would require, so we spin off Interstate 69 in Michigan and its brethren. The same goes for List of U.S. Highways in Michigan and U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, List of state trunklines in Michigan and M-1 (Michigan highway), and Pure Michigan Byway. So far, I think we'd all be in agreement that each of these articles and lists form a proper hierarchy from the system down to the individual highway, and that each example is more than notable and therefore worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.
Here's where I start to differ in my opinion. We have cases in Michigan of highways that have very little history. They weren't controversial (like M-6), they haven't existed for almost a century with various reroutings, extensions or truncations (like M-28), they aren't especially scenic (like M-22), nor do they have cultural or historical significance (like M-1). Maybe it's a case where the highway just isn't that long, or it's located in a rural area, so we get cases like M-67. There's too much content on M-67 to up-merge it into the list, as we would lose the entire route description and most of the history section to avoid undue weight in the table. It would take a fundamental shift in consensus to merge that article into some sort of list of some kind, and if we deleted this article, we'd leave a hole in our complete coverage of the State Trunkline Highway System.
Lastly, AHeneen, your two Mississippi examples are not secondary state highways, not as the quoted guideline uses the term nor as the articles are currently written. Some states, like Montana, have different signage to indicate that a highway is secondary. Texas has several classifications that would qualify as secondary, such as their Farm/Ranch to Market Roads, their State Highway Loops/ Spurs, their Park Roads or their Recreational Roads, all of which are distinct from their primary State Highways. From the way the two Mississippi articles are written, they're just short state highways, without any primary–secondary distinction applied by the state. When this distinction is not applied by the state, we've defaulted to the "state highway = keep" outcome at AfD; an outcome that doesn't preclude merging them someplace, but you'll need to nominate that alternate location. Imzadi 1979 → 21:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There actually is more history: Talk:Mississippi Highway 548#History -- NE2 23:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Both articles are now at GA Review. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mississippi Highway 548/1 & Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mississippi Highway 844/1 -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Would there be consensus for mass removal of the bare statement that a route is not on the NHS? -- NE2 19:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I ran the numbers on the MS 844 route description. The NHS sentence makes up almost 30% of the entire section. It's one thing to sneak the sentence into a >50KB-long article, but it's another to significantly pad an article with a single sentence. Maybe that's the litmus test. If you can only write enough about something that you have to add the NHS sentence, then it shouldn't have its own article. – Fredddie ™ 02:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Just because something appears on the 1932 map but not the 1931 map does not mean it was created in 1932. This is a very common error. At best you can say it was created in 1931 or 1932 (if the maps are dated January 1, it might be acceptable to assume the state wouldn't create anything on New Year's Day, so it was created in 1931 - yet they might approve something effective January 1). -- NE2 00:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Similar to how named highways are no longer abbreviated in {{
Jct}}
, I'd like to propose that we drop the banner abbreviations for bannered routes. It's quite simple:
And so on and so forth. For off-Interstate business routes, I think we should drop the ambiguity as well.
I think it's easier to read and has the added benefit of being more natural for screen readers. – Fredddie ™ 01:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
Jct}}
because though I prefer the spelled out version, there is limited horizontal space in the infobox.
V
C 03:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)I was wondering if there should be a separate article for Interstate 26 in Tennessee? There is for the other two states it travels through ( North Carolina and South Carolina). ACase0000 ( talk) 16:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It should be merged with U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee. -- NE2 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I've compiled User:NE2/Interstate history from various sources to list when Interstates were created or deleted. -- NE2 07:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Found this new creation - notable enough to keep? Delete-worthy? Bencherlite Talk 20:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It feels like (and is almost literally) ages ago that we as a project discussed the future of the Farm-to-Market Road articles. In that discussion, we seemed to agree that the FM articles should be merged into lists unless their articles could reach GA or higher, but we didn't really come to consensus on how that should be done. This page was started to keep track of the creation of these lists, and a few of us signed up to work on the lists groups of 100. That was twenty months ago, and I just recently got around to finishing one of the groups of 100 I signed up for. Here it is.
I was glad I finally finished something onwiki for once, but then it occurred to me that we never actually came to consensus on what to do with the FM articles/lists. What are we going to do with this? The main list is completed, but what is going to be added in addition to the list? What should go in the lead? Another question to consider: is this how we want to put the FMs into lists? I personally think so, otherwise I wouldn't have spent so much time on it, but what do others think? Should we routelist them as my list does or should we RCS them? Opinions? T C N7JM 03:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
But be careful about merging. FM 1764 is a bloody freeway, and others may be more important than the average FM road. -- NE2 05:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I see three options for organizing the FM routes:
If there are any other options, please list them here. V C 00:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
A few metro navboxes have appeared on List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (1–99). Is this something we want to happen, or should they be removed? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
U.S. Route 85 in New Mexico — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.164.90 ( talk) 14:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Would anybody be bothered if I removed three redirected Bannered routes of U.S. Route 58 from the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport? In fact, I see a lot of requests there that won't work as anything else but redirects to lists of bannered routes. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 20:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Not so fast on the archiving. We should discuss this a little more in depth. – Fredddie ™ 01:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
As I was saying, the requested articles page has a shitload of bannered route red links. What should we do? I have some ideas:
I'm leaning to #1, but I can be swayed. – Fredddie ™ 01:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Continuing on that thought, we could format the page like this:
As an added bonus, the bannered route lists would break up the text somewhat regularly making the completion list easier to read and follow overall. – Fredddie ™ 05:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I created the page (here: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/U.S. Routes/Completion list/Bannered routes) with the redlinks from the Requested article page. I haven't done any formatting nor have I added the bluelinks we have now. – Fredddie ™ 04:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I've started on a detailed list: User:NE2/auxiliary -- NE2 19:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Bannered routes of U.S. Route 5 is probably something to be avoided: not enough information to even place the supposed current routes on a map. -- NE2 21:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User:NE2/auxiliary now has all current ones I could verify and a smattering of former routes. -- NE2 03:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
None of these appear on old official maps. Here are the last pre-redirect versions:
These two had to exist before 1945, when the official map gets a Joplin inset that shows these as US 71 Bus. and US 66 proper. But in 1936 they were US 66 proper and Route W.
The only possibility for these is 1963, when the Springfield inset has some unlabeled routes (though neither goes "south to rejoin Business US 66 at the city square").
Does anyone have sources for them? -- NE2 23:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
There is discussion here for whether or not to include this interchange in the junction list, as it's a private interchange for ArcelorMittal. @ Traviswa: is concerned that, because it's private, it shouldn't be included lest someone take the junction list at face value and trespass on it but I feel that it should be included just like any other exit, and maybe indicated in the list that it's private. Is there a precedent for this? Including it seems congruent to MOS:RJL's "every grade separated interchange, without exception" rule. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Delete inappropriate dab entries? - ongoing dispute
I'm not going to WP:BEANS there, but the mention of Florida State Road 3 on FL 3, for example, is on the MOS enforcers' hit list. -- NE2 16:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I was wondering why U.S. Route 25W doesn't have its own article? I am willing to create it if you guys here will help me out. -- ACase0000 ( talk) 15:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the most recent edits on the Illinois Route 31 page? I think there may have been some original research and too many personal opinions added by the editor. I copy-edited the page, but I just don't feel right about the content. Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 03:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a followup to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 21#Arkansas abbreviation. @ Brandonrush: Here's an example from each district of AR or (older) ARK. It's hard to prove a negative, but in my virtual travels around the Pig State I've never seen any sign with Hwy. (which is the more common abbreviation on the AHTD site, so it's probably used internally).
To be clear: I'm proposing a change in abbreviation from "Hwy. X" to "AR X", handled by changing templates and running AWB. -- NE2 03:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I found one instance of "AR HWY 41". -- NE2 15:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Someone made an Interstate 864 page. Can someone take a look and give it a USRD makeover or delete it? Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 23:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
As you can see on http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=List_of_Arkansas_state_highways, there are a bunch of redirects to a nonexistent "State highway spurs" section. (PS: someone cocked up the "Centralized discussion" box up top by adding deletion templates.) -- NE2 23:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Why isn't I-8 on the FA map yet? -- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 20:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Done File:USRD FA map.png Thanks Freddie. — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 01:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to be able to bring an issue of our newsletter to publication by the end of the month. If you have anything that you'd like to write up for it, please visit WP:USRD/NR. I'm going with a deadline on February 26, but please don't wait until the last minute. Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 13:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, all! I just updated the Pennsylvania subsection of the map database with a bunch of new maps I acquired. I converted the list into two tables - split between the PennDOH era and PennDOT era, for the ease of listing PA maps. I added a few notes on PA maps as well.
-- hmich 176 00:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I have finished the GA audit list, and no more routes will be added. If any of your GAs are on this list, please fix the issues soon. Eventually, GARs will take place to resolve the articles that are not fixed. -- Rs chen 7754 23:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Why are the location categories being removed from the articles that I put them on? Shouldn't we put categories for the locations that a road travels through? Even if it is just the road-specific ones, why are the transportation ones being removed? Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 12:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite map}}
template conversionThere is a discussion about the {{
cite map}}
template ongoing at
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#cite map. It is likely that the discussion will result in formatting changes (including some improvements and additional flexibility) to the template, which is used in about 18,000 articles. Your feedback, as frequent users of this template, will be welcome and needed if these changes are to be implemented with the least amount of negative side effects.
Please link to this discussion from Talk pages of other projects that use {{
cite map}}
frequently. Thanks. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
, are already on Lua so this is a natural progression of things. It will speed up rendering/preview times for our articles, especially those with lots of map citations. In the process, I've suggested some changes, the first of which will result in the biggest formatting change while the others are just tweaks. All of these are designed to improve the template and make it more consistent with other CS1 citations.
|agency=
(rare) or the contributions of |others=
(probably only useful for translated versions of maps).|via=
parameter will also work so that we can note that a map was accessed via a third-party source, like Google Books.|mode=cs2
option to make CS1 templates output like the CS2-style {{
citation}}
. Additionally, the templates will check if dates are formatted improperly based on the MOS and flag them for correction. The template will also flag if unsupported parameters are added instead of just skipping them.Seems like we're starting a collection of these, so we'd probably better have this discussion sooner rather than later. Are these really important enough to have articles? If not, what can we do about them? An RCS-style list like we're doing with Texas FMs is appealing—any reason why we shouldn't follow that model? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Since there seems to be broad consensus for this, I went ahead and merged what we've got to List of Montana Secondary Highways. Could probably use some minor cleanup to remove overlinks, etc. In the future if we keep getting them we can split this page into hundred ranges like we've got the FMs set up with. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It may not be a bad idea to hammer out some guidelines while we're on the subject of RCS. – Fredddie ™ 22:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
If you have more ideas for guidelines, please add them. – Fredddie ™ 23:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
How about a couple of brief principles on whether or not a RJL should be included in a section of a RCS list?
The general practice will be to omit the RJLs, but in some situations a case can be made to include one. Imzadi 1979 → 20:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I need to be convinced that we need RJLs in RCS entries at all. Can you all provide me with some examples where this is a good idea and why it is a good idea? The principles above suggest RJLs would be common in RCS lists, which I totally disagree with. V C 19:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I feel this should be moved to something else because it's not a list, but not sure what it should be moved to... -- Rs chen 7754 05:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:BOLD, I moved both articles by dropping the "List of" for now. They can be moved again once the official title of the system is found. In all reality, we should go through and find the official title for all state highway systems so we should know what the overview articles should be titled. Dough 48 72 05:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to throw my two cents at this. I think "<state> State Highway System" (always Highway, never Road or Route) is the best nomenclature in general. That is, unless the state has a specific name for the system (such as
Iowa Primary Highway System,
Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, or
Wisconsin State Trunk Highway System). As for Pennsylvania, I think it should be
Pennsylvania Traffic Route System because it limits the scope of the article to the top three levels. That does not preclude us from including something on the quadrant routes and below in the article, but it would limit us from going in depth; a {{
Main}}
link and a paragraph would be sufficient. I have done something like that in the Iowa article, where there is a section for secondary highways, even though the scope is primary highways. –
Fredddie
™ 01:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Has the NHS URL changed? -- Rs chen 7754 17:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I am happy to announce that the addition of KMLs to all USRD B-Class articles, a project I started last year, is nearly complete. As such, I politely request that if an article is improved to B-Class, a KML is added to it as quickly as possible.
The one B-Class KML remaining is a doozy: U.S. Route 66 in Illinois. There isn't really one specific routing; the route was modified a whole bunch while it still existed. Along with that, the road that US 66 used to follow no longer exists or is closed in some cases, so it's not really something you can find on a map anymore. Do you guys have any suggestions on how this KML should be tackled? Thanks. T C N7JM 20:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll do it from IDOT GIS data. One thing I just noticed: most of old US 66 in IL is still state maintained! -- NE2 04:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I manually fixed the multipart lines. That was really annoying, but now it works on Bing. The Goog of course no longer works, but that's congress. -- NE2 01:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I feel like now is a good time to bring these up in more detail considering we've recently been discussing what to do with roads of questionable note in Montana and Texas. I was patrolling recent changes a little while ago and found that List of quadrant routes in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, was created. I talked to User:Mitchazenia about it on IRC and he told me that quite a few of these lists exist.
I'm not sure we've ever had a discussion on these (if we have, please direct me there), but I wonder what should be done with the Pennsylvania quadrant routes. Pretty much the only ones that are...actually routes are the 1000s-4000s, which are all that most of the lists that existed before today (with one exception) cover. Even then, some of these route designations are nothing more than overpasses or bridges. After the 4000s, the notability gets even more questionable. All of the 8000s are interchanges, and the 9000s consist of, among other things, rest areas and truck escape ramps.
Personally, I'm not sure these routes deserve to be covered in lists. A lot of the routes wouldn't even make sense to include in a routelist, much less an RCS-style list like we're doing with the FM/RM roads in Texas. I think an article on the system might be enough. What say you guys? T C N7JM 21:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@ NE2 – Technically doesn't NY's system of using the internal numbers still count as a system of legislative routes? As for the quadrant route issue. I love Quadrant Routes as much as the next roadgeek (and people used to think I made up the word...) but do we seriously need 67 lists on routes that PennDOT's actually been reducing to bridges in many areas? The most coverage they deserve is in the former traffic routes. Mitch32( I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance) 23:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this needs to be clarified...quadrant routes are not all State Routes 1001-9499; quadrant routes are classified only as the routes numbered 1001-4999. PennDOT's hierarchy is 1) Interstates, 2) US Routes, 3) PA Routes, 4) Quadrant Routes. This specifically excludes the bottom seven classes, because they are all inventory classes. This is why you don't see them on a map such as this. SRs above 4999 should not be included on a list of quadrant routes. -- hmich 176 10:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Can I suggest that we just not make lists of quadrant routes? There are 67 counties in Pennsylvania, which means there will be 67 lists of quadrant routes. It seems like an awful lot of work for such minor, minor roads. New York's coverage of county roads is probably the best example of similarly wasted energies that I see, but I think even then PA's quadrant routes would dwarf NY county roads. I still think the best course of action is a paragraph or two on the state highway system article and calling it good. – Fredddie ™ 11:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Michael J: PennDOT has produced a straight line diagram which indexes all SRs within a county (I linked an example). Lists do exist for all 67 counties. -- hmich 176 10:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
If you're interested in adding pre-1987 legislative route numbers, [3] has every county except Philly. -- NE2 03:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I added history to List of quadrant routes in Adams County, Pennsylvania to show how it can be done. -- NE2 02:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I compiled a list at User talk:Hmich176/Pennsylvania State Route System/List of State Routes in Montour County, Pennsylvania. I also couldn't find 1001, 2004, 2015, or 2018, though I have an educated guess for 2015. -- NE2 03:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you think should be done with Pennsylvania quadrant routes?
I'd like to get a gauge on what we want to do here, then move forward, rather than just have a lot of unfocused discussion which will probably end up leading to nothing. T C N7JM 17:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
For Interstates and U.S. Highways with state-detail articles, are both the national article and S-D article supposed to be in the "Interstate/U.S. Highways in <state>" categories? – Fredddie ™ 17:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This past Saturday, {{ cite map}} was transitioned over to Lua. In the transition, some formatting changes were made to how the template outputs information. A few worth highlighting:
|author=
is defined, the output with start with the title of the map, and the |publisher=
will be listed in the middle of the citation in a more standard location, preceded by |location=<place of publication>
if defined.|sections=
, the value will be preceded by §§, which is the standard abbreviation for sections.|mode=cs2
to any CS1 template using Lua (which is basically all of them now), the output will look like CS2. Templates like {{
Google maps}} should be updated to pass through |mode=
to ensure maximum compatibility in articles.|via=
to indicate the name of the republisher, whether that's Google Books, Wikimedia Commons or someone else.Maps have authors, so one should be listed in a complete citation. In a lot of cases, it's actually the same as the publishing company, so |author=Rand McNally
and |publisher=Rand McNally
would be a correct situation. If it's an official state road map, the first author would be the state agency, but the map could have a second author if Rand McNally, H.M. Gousha or another company did cartography work for the state. This really means that the |cartography=
parameter is not necessary in most cases because we can list as many authors as necessary, separate from the name of the publisher.
Map citations should also be updated to use |sections=
so that §§ will precede the section numbers.
Imzadi 1979
→ 08:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
Bing maps}}
{{
Google maps}}
{{
Illinois road map}}
for road maps from various Illinois state departments{{
cite MDOT map}}
for the MSHD/MDSH/MDSHT/MDOT road maps{{
cite MDOT PRFA}}
for MDOT's Physical Reference Finder Application{{
MoDOT Flex}}
for MoDOT's Flex Map Viewer{{
Ohio road map}}
for OSHD/ODOHPW/ODOH/ODOT road maps{{
Odot control}}
for ODOT control section maps{{
Texas Mapbook }}
for the Texas Mapbook{{
TxDOT map}}
for some maps from TxDOT and its predecessor agencies{{
Yahoo maps}}
Any templates above that are rendered in monospace type on a background
have been updated to have authors specified, the inclusion of a |sections=
parameter and probably the |mode=
parameter as well. If there are any other state- or source-specific templates used by USRD, please add them, and please update the list when any have been modified.
Imzadi 1979
→ 08:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI, an alternative newspaper for southern Utah has scanned some pages from a 1934 Shell atlas. These scans would be of more interest to Utah highway editors, but they also scanned a page that has Reno, Nevada and one that shows most of US 66's routing through Arizona. Maybe we could contact them about scanning the whole thing? http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/blog/2015/03/20/poking-through-the-ruins-14-1934-shell-highway-map-of-utah/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moabdave ( talk • contribs)
Can someone from the project take a look at the map on Tennessee State Route 475? It looks exactly like a map on Interstate-guide.com. Is this plagiarism? If so, can an allowable map be put in its place? Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) ( talk) 22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Different question, is it really cancelled if I-475 was never requested to AASHTO? I only ask because I've been reversing edits to a somewhat similar issue in regards to Business I-85 as cancelled I-685, which was never endorsed by SCDOT nor requested. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 02:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
For the last year or so, the U.S. Roads Portal has been neglected by all of us. With monthly article, picture and DYK selections, the portal might be requiring too much regular participation to be viable for a project of our size, so it might be wise to switch it to a new format. Instead of monthly submissions, the portal could instead use a predetermined set of rotating articles, pictures and facts that can be refreshed using {{ purge}}, similar to how the Maryland Roads portal is laid out. In doing so, users can nominate and submit content without a set deadline, allowing for spikes in activity to translate to permanent growth and maintenance. Sounder Bruce 01:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I've done the SA and SP for this month but haven't done the DYK out of not having any ideas, having used all the hooks at WP:USRD/DYK. At this point, I feel we can still nominate the SA and SP every month but maybe should look into automating the DYK hooks as I am out of ideas unless other editors suggest stuff. Another idea is to recycle past DYK hooks and mix them up. I would like to see what we can do for the portal DYK this month. Dough 4872 02:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
While not exactly an RfC, I would like some input on an issue brought up by myself regarding information about the Oppritunity Corridor on the Interstate 490 (Ohio) page. If you would like to weigh in on this discussion, please put your input at Talk:Interstate 490 (Ohio)#Oppritunity Corridor. Thank you. Pyrotle {T/ C} 02:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Why are we jumping the gun on this? Why is there a separate article for Interstate 44 (North Carolina–Virginia)? Why are we favoring one proposed number over the other (44 over 50)? Can't we just merge the article with Interstate 495 (North Carolina) until the final number is settled? -- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 03:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 26#Category:Named state highways in Oregon -- NE2 11:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I started Draft:Glossary of road transport terms. Feel free to fill in where you see fit. – Fredddie ™ 16:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, just wanted to let you all know that there has been a proposal to merge Interstate 44 (North Carolina–Virginia) into Interstate 495 (North Carolina). Please share your opinion on this proposal. Thank you. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 22:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I was looking at this page specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_133 and wondering what was the local street name of a particular section of that highway as I believe such roads can change from town to town. If you notice, there's a table with a "notes" section so I'm wondering if adding local road names as a highway passes through various towns would be worthy of consideration. Or if its just *one* road name the whole length, maybe that could be emphasized right at the start. Thanks. -- uronlydreaming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uronlydreaming ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Help! I changed the junctions in the infobox of Interstate 10 to show the national-level articles instead of state-specific ones. However, at least one anonymous user keeps reverting my change. What can be done about that? Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) ( talk) 21:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Talk:Interstate 755 (Mississippi) about what should be done with Interstate 755 (Mississippi) and Interstate 755 (Missouri). Could USRD weigh in on this?
Also, someone made an Interstate 570 page. Is this valid? Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) ( talk) 21:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There was recently a construction accident on Washington State Route 410 where a chunk of concrete fell off a bridge onto the road below, resulting in three deaths. There is some question as to whether this is worth of inclusion in the article. Please comment at Talk:Washington State Route 410#Bridge accident. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 00:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this list viable? Draft:List of state highways in Polk County, Texas. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It's still being developed, but I wonder if this could be useful (see the map on the demo page). -- Rs chen 7754 01:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Last year, I compiled a PDF document of several different documents produced by the Maryland State Highway Administration and its predecessor agencies and available at the Maryland State Archives. The compilation includes handwritten lists of highway projects—handwritten by employees at SHA/SRC, not by me—and opening dates. I would like to be able to use this compilation document as a cited reference; using the compilation document instead of each individual document in the state archives would save the trouble of needing to make references to 30 different documents. Is this something any of you have done before? Even if the answer is no, I would appreciate help working through any problems with this approach and creating a citation template to cite this document or the original constituent documents. The compilation document is linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maryland/Resources#Road Construction Progress Log Book. V C 17:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Category:Infobox road maps for Wikidata migration I created this category yesterday so we know how many maps need to be migrated over to Wikidata. Ideally, there should be a bot that can do this for us, right? – Fredddie ™ 22:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
|map=
to the infobox. Someone should work on completing the status tables over there. -
happy
5214 03:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
As tomorrow (Sunday) is the last day of May, and we are scheduled to publish the Spring 2015 quarterly issue of The Centerline in May, this is the last call for content. I will will publish the newsletter before midnight UTC tomorrow so that it gets a May timestamp on delivery. Please add your submissions in the newsroom. Imzadi 1979 → 02:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm hoping to get the audit completed soon (well over 2 years after it started). Next weekend I'll start sending articles to GAR, or fixing it myself if possible. If there are some articles that you have fixed but are still on the list, please let me know. -- Rs chen 7754 20:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
[4] might be of some use for notable accidents where the NTSB investigated. -- Rs chen 7754 16:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
New Jersey Route 185, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- Rs chen 7754 23:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
New Jersey Route 181, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- Rs chen 7754 04:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Saginaw Trail, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- Rs chen 7754 04:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
We last restructured our WikiProject pages in 2012, so it's probably time for some housekeeping, so that the project spaces help us to write content, and so that newcomers can find what they need to more easily.
I plan to go through some more pages later, but here's some thoughts to start with:
Thoughts? -- Rs chen 7754 04:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The plurality of states use the convention WikiProject U.S. Roads/Redirects/Statename for their redirect lists. Should we move forward with moving the redirect lists that do not follow that format to that format? V C 23:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
An IP is insisting on merging the article into Interstate 76 in Pennsylvania. Any thoughts? -- Rs chen 7754 03:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
See Interstate 90 in Ohio - majority of article refers to the Ohio Turnpike and the remainder is the portion in the Cleveland area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.81.116 ( talk) 14:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Something more radical: How about we remove both of the state-detail articles (Pennsylvania and Ohio) in favor of the articles on the specific named portions of I-76? The I-76 article would use summary style for the Ohio Turnpike, Pennsylvania Turnpike, and Schuylkill Expressway, which together make up 85 percent of the length of the Interstate, and the 60 miles of I-76 west of the Ohio Turnpike and the 3 miles in New Jersey would be covered in depth in the main article. The biggest problem I foresee is how to do the Exit list(s), but a full Exit list likely would not exceed 100 rows. V C 23:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings either way about merging Schuylkill with I-76 but am leaning against. What I will say is that the current organization of the 4 overlapping topics Interstate 76 in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Turnpike, Interstate 276 (Pennsylvania) and Schuylkill Expressway is logical from a historical perspective, but not from a modern perspective. As has been noted above, it's a complex situation, and there is no way (that I'm aware of) to organize this into articles that is both consistent and doesn't have mostly redundant articles. I would change my vote in a heartbeat if someone presents an argument that the status quo is causing too many template breaks, or special case code to handle. Dave ( talk) 20:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems that we need to change any citations to them... [7] -- Rs chen 7754 02:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
There's 3 articles remaining in the GA audit dating from 2010. I took a look at fixing them, but they're a bit beyond the amount of time that I have, and the nominators are unable to fix the issues or are inactive. Rather than having to delist, I thought I'd bring them here first:
Thanks! -- Rs chen 7754 18:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
poke - Floydian τ ¢ 02:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 1 in Pennsylvania#Roosevelt Blvd. Dough 4872 23:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Ohio State Route 300, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- Rs chen 7754 04:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Talk:U.S. Route 6#US 6/20 is the longest continuous highway Dave ( talk) 18:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
As suggested at Template talk:Attached KML, the KML creation tutorial might be better suited in the Help namespace – something like Help:KML tutorial. The range of articles that do or could have an attached KML file is much greater than the scope of USRD, HWY, or any individual wikiproject. What do project members think of this idea? - Evad37 [ talk 02:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The following articles are GAs, but I feel they are of questionable notability:
An earlier discussion (somewhere in the archives) concluded that most Texas FM roads should be handled WP:USRD/RCS style, in most cases (but not if the road has enough information to stand alone). The question here, then, is whether these are notable enough for their own article. -- Rs chen 7754 04:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a formal notification that I have started the above review to make sure the article is up to the latest standards. -- Rs chen 7754 18:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned about this article's GA status. While it is reliably sourced (even though the links are dead, they can be fixed), the history is almost entirely sourced to the National Bridge Inventory, which to me is akin to sourcing to maps. Which is usually allowed for GAs, but GAs entirely sourced to maps are looked on with suspicion. It's usually considered passable if it's a short route with little information in newspapers – but that is certainly not the case for a 2 digit Interstate. Thoughts? -- Rs chen 7754 00:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll skip the usual boilerplate templates from now on, but the above went to GAR. -- Rs chen 7754 05:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I feel this is getting out of control. I didn't even know where Valdosta was until I clicked on the template, but apparently we have one for that "metropolitan area". Do we need them for Peoria? Pine Bluff? This is concerning. -- Rs chen 7754 06:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Categories for individual counties have little function when searching for roads in a entire metropolitan statistical area. Molandfreak ( talk) 07:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think a distinction should be made between those like {{ Highways in the Capital District, New York}} that list all state highways and those like {{ Expressways in Greater Orlando}} that have only expressways (and in this case it also serves to group CFX roads, and was originally at {{ OOCEA}} (CFX's old name)). -- NE2 07:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
PS: how many fucking boxes would go on Great River Road? -- NE2 07:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
At least 90 percent of these templates need to go. Which one should we start with? V C 02:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete per above discussion. Famous river crossings in a particular area (which are basically the features that appeal to me about these sort of templates) can be handled in a similar fashion to the Mississippi River crossings. -- Molandfreak ( talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's been a couple weeks since we decided to send most of these off to TfD. Since then, the Valdosta template has been deleted, and it appears as if the Lubbock template will be deleted as well. My question now is, where do we go from here? Do we send a bunch of the templates for smaller metros at once in a group deletion request, or should we send one or two more individually first? Also, at what point in population/importance of metro area do we stop sending the templates to deletion requests? Thoughts? T C N7JM 19:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I looked through the remaining templates to see if any of them would make sense to send in the first small group, and I think I found a pretty good starter pack. There are three for random, small metros in Arkansas -- {{ Roads of Fort Smith}}, {{ Roads of Hot Springs}} and {{ Roads in Jonesboro}} -- that are essentially the same template for different metros, and aren't too much different from the one that's already been deleted and the one that will be deleted soon. Would anyone oppose me shipping these three off to TfD once the Lubbock discussion closes? T C N7JM 06:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Georgia templates minus Atlanta on deck. That's {{ Athens, Georgia highways}}, {{ Augusta, Georgia highways}}, {{ Columbus, Georgia highways}}, {{ Macon, Georgia highways}} and {{ Savannah, Georgia highways}}. Speak now or forever hold your peace. T C N7JM 15:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The next batch is up. My intent with this one was to get precedent for metros that cover more than one state (just to be safe). The discussion is here. Included are {{ Quad Cities Roads}}, {{ Twin ports roads}}, {{ Roads of Northwest Arkansas}} and {{ Roads of Texarkana}}. I think this is probably the last smaller batch we'll have to send. After this, I think we should start sending them in larger groups. T C N7JM 04:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
So, what's next? I vote {{ Unbuilt New Jersey Highways}} and {{ Puerto Rico Highways}}, probably the least needed of what's left. -- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 00:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Ahh shoot, TFD is backlisted again. Any updates on what to send? -- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 23:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I jump-started this process by nominating {{ Highways in the Capital District, New York}}, {{ Annapolis, Maryland Roads}}, {{ Baton Rouge Highways}}, {{ Metro Birmingham expressways}}, {{ Peoria expressways}}, {{ Providence freeways}}, {{ Tulsa Area Highways}}, and {{ SLC highways}}. This set of templates is being discussed at here. V C 04:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I nominated eight more templates for deletion: {{ Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex}}, {{ Metro Detroit Freeways}}, {{ Denver highways}}, {{ Atlanta expressways}}, {{ Baltimore Metropolitan Area Roads}}, {{ Boston Road Transportation}}, {{ Chicagoland expressways}}, and {{ Cleveland freeways}}. Opine at the discussion. V C 01:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I plan to send several more templates for deletion this week. However, I wanted to point out the templates that I do not plan to send for deletion. Those four involve streets of a particular city, so the linked content of those navboxen should be under the jurisdiction of WikiProject U.S. Streets. They are {{ Streets in Los Angeles}}, {{ Streets of Manhattan}}, {{ Streets in San Francisco}}, and {{ Streets in Washington, DC}}. I did not include {{ Dallas Streets}} in this list because it is tiny and includes several state highways. For these four streets templates, I suggest we create a new category, find another appropriate category, or just remove these templates from the metro area highway templates categories. V C 01:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This time, I nominated a series of metropolitan freeway templates for deletion: {{ Tampa Bay Freeways and Tollways}}, {{ Houston freeways}}, {{ LA Freeways}}, {{ Metro Charlotte expressways}}, {{ Milwaukee freeways}}, {{ NJ Expressways}}, {{ Expressways in Greater Orlando}}, and {{ Phoenix-area freeways}}. Contribute to the discussion. V C 01:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is no standard guide as to what exactly should and should not be put into the notes column on junctions lists. The description on WP:RJL#Standard columns seems open ended, and it is unclear what can be considered standard practice now. Otherwise, you get misunderstandings like this, for example, where User:Imzadi1979 reverted my edits where I removed something that I thought was not standard. And it is unclear if this standard practice should be added uniformly across all the other relevant junctions on that major junctions list. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 06:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Is I 86 supposed to eventually at the Thruway or at I 84? The article says it will end at I 87, but there is no source. I found a sign at the NY 17 cloverleaf with I 84 that was a covered blue shield with the word "end" above it. The mileage markers after it going towards the Thruway show NY 17 on the marker, not I 86. Anyone have any idea what this means? PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 23:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC) I did find this link for the entire project. [10] PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 23:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Draft:WV Route 2 and I-68 Authority has been submitted to AFC, your opinion about the acceptability, or otherwise, of the submission would be appreciated. Please comment on the draft's talk page if you do not wish to do a full AFC review. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This message board posting had links to many issues of California Highways and Public Works, some of which may be useful for editors in other states. An early AASHO policy related to numbering U.S. Highways is located in the October 1937 issue on pages 13 and 28, for instance. The issues are hosted on part of Archive.org, so they're likely permanent. Imzadi 1979 → 09:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I've been looking at Minnesota's route log lately and I noticed something curious about the I-494/I-694 beltway. Mile Zero is at the Hennepin–Dakota County line near MSP Airport and it travels clockwise. When I-494 reaches I-694, the mileposts do not change, which is similar to how I-35E continues with I-35's mileposts.
I don't really have any details worked out, such as what we'd call the article, so, I'm not necessarily proposing a merger of the two Interstates at this time, but I'd like to gauge support for such a merger. – Fredddie ™ 04:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't Merge. There's a reason that 494 and 694 are separate routes. I-494 is an inner-[greatly populated] suburb beltway, while 694 is a legitimate bypass of MSP.-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Since AA is not picking this up. Talk:Maryland Route 61#Requested move 30 July 2015. Dough 4872 13:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
After having created a formal list at List of county routes in Erie County, New York, I have nominated the RCS-style lists for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of county routes in Erie County, New York (1–32). Mitch32( The best ideas are common property.) 17:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
If you like taking pictures for USRD or Wikipedia in general, there is a short interview about taking pictures at the Newsletter's newsroom page. The more responses I get the better the piece will be. – Fredddie ™ 13:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Category:Interstate 805, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Category:Three-digit Interstate Highways, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Auxiliary Interstate Highways. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
See here. Comments? Mapsax ( talk) 19:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 18#Template:Washington metropolitan area roads. Dough 4872 03:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily talking about story ideas, but what can we do to freshen up the newsletter, and maybe make it less of a chore to put together? Here are a few things I was thinking about:
{{
Divbox}}
or something like it to break up stories with little DYK-type snippetsI can put together a mockup of the current Newsletter to show you what I'm talking about. – Fredddie ™ 01:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Category:Three-digit U.S. Highways, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Auxiliary U.S. Highways. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Currently we have Category:Three-digit U.S. Highways that runs afoul of WP:SHAREDNAME. In an earlier nomination, we changed Category:Three-digit Interstate Highways to Category:Auxiliary Interstate Highways to reflect why that category is defining. This category should either be renamed to something else to reflect what is actually being grouped in the category or--if there really is nothing in common other than the name--the category should be merged to Category:Bannered and suffixed U.S. Highways or Category:U.S. Highway System.
With Category:Three-digit U.S. Highways, I thought using the same approach would be non-controversial but there is actually a very clear consensus not to rename it to "auxiliary" per this CFD:
CFD Discussion
|
---|
Category:Three-digit U.S. Highways
|
Question Let me take two steps back here: Is there a different rename for this category that would describe the roads without relying on their names and wouldn't be redundant with Category:Bannered and suffixed U.S. Highways? RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Now that I've had a little while to think about it,
Category:U.S. Highway System should list the same articles that are in {{
U.S. Routes}}
, which are the two-digit mainlines plus the oddballs like US 412. From there, there would be subcategories for each route that has or had a three-digit branch, i.e.
U.S. Route 701 would be in
Category:U.S. Route 1. After that, the three-digit category can be removed entirely as it's not a defining feature. –
Fredddie
™ 23:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
As some of you may now (from IRC chat), I came out as transgender in February 2014. Due to this, my gender dysphoria has hit me so hard lately. In addition, the United States Navy's prohibition of open transgender service (makes me have to be totally a guy at work) until they lift the ban or I get out in March 2016 (whichever comes first), has caused me to become severely depressed. Therefore, I have retreated inside of me and stayed in Facebook too much, and I have neglected my editing "duties".
In other news, on Friday, September 25, I was involved in a car accident. My air bag scraped me and hit my nose. I might be taking more of a back seat to things on here. I really think I will be going for counseling soon. I hope no one is angry with me for revealing these things, or for using this page as a medium to inform y'all. That is exactly what I was trying to do: informing the WikiProject as to what was happening with me. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) ( talk) 02:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Quite to my surprise, a week ago another user at Commons nominated for featured picture there this picture I took along NY 199 in northeastern Dutchess County almost a year ago, to replace an earlier picture taken at almost the same location with an inferior camera. To my even bigger surprise, it passed unanimously, making it only my second FP at Commons.
Looking around, I see that this is only the third Commons FP of an American road after this and this one. More important to this project, it seems to be the first one taken by an American, and the first by a USRD participating editor. So I guess I feel proud of myself (Yes, I thought it was good enough to nominate for FP myself at some point; just hadn't gotten there yet).
I suppose I'll be nominating it for FP here at some point soon, to go along with the Route 66 pic which shares that honor. Keep an eye out for it there. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
See here. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
See above. -- Rs chen 7754 22:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
G'day everyone, just coming in out of the cold for a little while at least, since the 10th anniversary of WP:USRD has brought the project to the fore in my mind and I'm without a fair number of my other commitments right now. I'm currently visiting the United States, although I fly back to Australia next Monday; but, I hope to reside in the US permanently a year from now. With that said, I've looked over some of the articles I've edited in the Miami area (i.e. the majority of my contributions) and I've noticed a few changes that I'd just like to question for some clarification before I attempt to do any more editing:
Thanks for your help, folks, and I look forward to editing once more. - DyluckTRocket ( talk) 22:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
As most should know already, Yahoo! shut down their mapping service earlier this year in June. That means every article using {{ yahoo maps}} as a source has a dead link that can't be replaced with an archived copy. I've gone through the list of transclusions and eliminated the non-USRD uses, but that still leaves a little over 300 articles where the site is in use, assuming all links are using the template.
Can we get a few editors to pitch in some time to swap out Yahoo! Maps citations for ones using another mapping service? If we all picked a couple of articles a day, we could have everything switched in a week or so. Then we could have the template deleted and move forward without it. Imzadi 1979 → 22:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
There is an issue with the Junction list on Tennessee State Route 319. I have tried to fix it but nothing works. -- ACase0000 ( talk) 03:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Do we consider these notable enough for their own article? The articles in question are Texas Park Road 2, Texas Park Road 3, and Texas Park Road 30.
@ A Texas Historian: Rs chen 7754 22:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I know this is not USRD, but most of us have the editing skills to work on articles north of the border. Ontario Highway 48 is currently at GAN and is on hold for mostly minor issues. However, the nominator has been inactive for the past two months, and it would help if other editors would be willing to step in and fix the issues. The review is at Talk:Ontario Highway 48/GA1. Dough 4872 01:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone's objecting to my inclusion of future exit numbers for Massachusetts. Can someone make it so I can change the column titles current and future or something? -- NE2 17:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
So when I was cranking out some KMLs this afternoon, I noticed nine stubs in the Arkansas category that pertain to segments of old highways in Arkansas that are on the National Register of Historic Places. As all of them are no longer maintained by the state, the only claim of notability for each seems to be that it is included on the NRHP. This, to me, seems not enough for each segment to warrant its own article. In my opinion, the nine of them should be combined into a single listicle, if not just deleted outright. What do others think should be done with these pages?
For reference, the articles in question are Old Arkansas 22, Old Arkansas 51, Old US 67 and the Old US 71 segments at Ashdown, Greenland, Jenny Lind, the Little River approach, Ogden and Wilton. While composing this request for comments, I noticed redirects for a few other similar segments: Old Arkansas 2, Old Arkansas 11 and another segment of Old US 67. Yet more of them may be out there unbeknownst to me. Any thoughts on these either? T C N7JM 03:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Question regarding Welcome Centers and possibly Rest Areas. Got a case where a user in the past added a Welcome Center in an Interstate exit list, do we simply remove them? Also do we note about them anywhere on the article if we so choose? This has probably been asked before, but just need clarification from the current group. Thank you. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 14:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I've closed the User:Rschen7754/USRD GA audit. The few remaining articles that need to be fixed are issues that are arguably borderline in terms of the audit scope.
Now that it has closed, how do we make sure that our GAs retain their quality, going forward? Especially as we get closer to 1000, and as I'm getting busier in real life, I'm no longer able to conduct such a thorough audit like I did the last few years. -- Rs chen 7754 22:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC) (postscript: or really, for any one person to do, even if they are very active, as we get more and more GAs. -- Rs chen 7754 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC))
Different question, I want to break out the Tennessee article for Interstate 26, but it is completely overlapped with U.S. Route 23 (which also doesn't have its own article) and continues another three miles into the next state. I believe the reason why neither have a Tennessee article yet because is nobody know how best way to do this. Is there any examples where to highways share the same article in similar circumstance? What would be the best way to handle this? -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 15:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Made first attempt of the new U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee article page. Yes, it is a work in progress, but if you want to go ahead and make corrections and/or think this will not work for a redirect of I-26 in Tennessee, now is the time to review. Thanks. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 00:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The junction list "county" needs to be removed as the city of Bristol, Virginia is an independent city (meaning it is not apart of any county). I tried to fix it but couldn't. -- ACase0000 ( talk) 03:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
|county=Washington
and |location=Bristol
, you have to use |indep_city=Bristol
. Easy. –
Fredddie
™ 13:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I want to split off U.S. Route 33 in Ohio into its own article instead of a redirect. I have a junction list at User:TenPoundHammer/sandbox and would like some help in adding the mileages and other relevant information. I'd also like to know how the SR 691 south / SR 78 east exit is signed since Google Street View went through before that exit was open. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey folks, there's a risk of a reversion war breaking out between another editor and myself on Florida State Road 997 as to the legitimacy, significance and verifiability of what to include in the article's RJL. My version of the RJL leaves out a lot of material that is included on the other editor's version. I would like to seek third party opinions, please, on how to best proceed on the article's talk page here. - DyluckTRocket ( talk) 08:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
We probably have enough snippets in our Portal news archive that we could create an "On this day" section. I don't believe that there are 366 days of content, so it can be set up to show only when there is content available. I think that if we do this, we should expand each snippet to give the reader a little more context. Any thoughts? – Fredddie ™ 21:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems the five-year transportation funding bill signed into law this month has given new life to this long-moribund proposal. The congressionally designated corridor now extends into western Texas roughly following US 190.
Fortguy ( talk) 22:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was going to do a partial revert on htis edit as its an invalid shield.. However I suspect the edit should be a full revert. Thought I'd flag it for you guys to look at. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 13:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
We have 314 classes remaining to make one of our goals for 2015. It seems like a lot, but merging TX FM road articles into RCS lists is probably the easiest way to do this, since it is on average 4 classes per merger (which takes about 5 minutes each). That comes out to merging away 80 of those articles.
There's more information at Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S. Roads/Texas/FM completion list if you're interested. -- Rs chen 7754 21:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
On U.S. Route 411 it says that the route has no 2nd terminus and that: "Tennessee signs the south end at I-40 northeast of Greeneville". I-40 isn't northeast of Greeneville. And it would be the north. The correct northern terminus is at US-25W/US-70/I-40 in Newport, Tennessee.
I'd fix it myself but I just wanted to see what you all think. -- ACase0000 ( talk) 02:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Would TDOT's maps Etc. Be useful? -- ACase0000 ( talk) 04:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
With the push to get road maps on templates, I think now would be a good time to get Pennsylvania done as the state recently changed the URL to the maps. The historical road maps posted online by PennDOT are here. In addition, we should probably also create templates for the county Type 10 maps. The current county maps are here while some of the historic county maps are here. Dough 4872 00:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
See Draft:Interstate 84 in Pennsylvania, Draft:U.S. Route 231 in Tennessee and Draft:U.S. Route 287 in Oklahoma. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Why does I-84 have four state-detail articles? I didn't think the entire route was long enough to merit splitting. – Fredddie ™ 19:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
In general, I'd support either running with separate state-level subarticles or merging everything together for one reason. If there were an elegant solution, I'd withdraw this personal reservation. If split up, table-based exit lists would exist only on the state-level articles, and the national-level article would have a simpler "bulleted"-style list. This is the situation with Interstate 75 and Interstate 75 in Michigan, et al. If there were not separate articles, then the table-based list would be in the national-level article, as in U.S. Route 8. These should be mutually exclusive options for consistency.
Let's assume that some states get subarticles and some do not. OK, so each state with a subarticle receives a full table-based exit list, and the national-level article has the simplified list. So what of the states we deem should not have subarticles? If a table-based exit list for that state would essentially consist of the termini within that state, then I see no harm in omitting a table someplace. However, if that hypothetical table contains more than "essentially just the termini", then we have an issue of due weight in our treatment of the topic across the collection of articles. Of course we do have the situations where a highway dips into and back out of a state, and in those cases like I-49 in TX or I-24 in GA, we've merged that minor amount of state-level content into another state-level article.
Ok, the summary: in the case of I-84 in MA, I think we have too long of an exit list to warrant not including it someplace. It would be inconsistent to use the summary-style list for the other three states in the national I-84 article and drop a table for MA at the end. In other cases though, such a single-state exit list might be simple enough to not require a full table someplace. Imzadi 1979 → 14:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I noticed across Virginia road articles that a mix of "State Route X" and "Virginia State Route X" were used for the article title in the lead. According to WP:USSH, "State Route X" is the official name while "Virginia State Route X" is to be used for article titles. In that case, we need to change the instances using "Virginia State Route X" to "State Route X". Would someone be willing to do an AWB run to fix this? Dough 4872 04:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
it would be great if someone could fix the duplicate location parameter errors (to see, view in preview mode) in
thank you. Frietjes ( talk) 17:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Some of the auxiliary Interstate navboxes list business routes in each state. I've been adding them to others for consistency, but I don't know if they should be included at all since they aren't the same thing as 3DIs. Sure, they're "auxiliary," but do they really have the same importance as a 3DI child Interstate?-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Noting that I have started the above discussion. Your feedback is welcome. -- Rs chen 7754 20:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Massachusetts plans to replace exit numbers from sequential-based to milepost-based in the next few years. Didn't we agree that the exit lists should remain the old numbers until signage changes are completed? Recent changes were made to Interstate 84 in Massachusetts and Interstate 91. Are we getting ahead of ourselves? Chinissai ( talk) 14:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Talk:List of U.S. Highways in South Carolina#Missing highways about the missing entries for the page. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) ( talk) 05:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed a number of recent random edits to junction lists by 2601:202:201:34c2:e9c7:c8a9:ce15:6bb2 ( talk). These seem to be adding somewhat irrelevant long-distance destinations. I reverted a couple, but thought others should be aware. -- LJ ↗ 19:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)