![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
State Route to Route I understand, but what was wrong with the succession/precession boxes? It made the named highways fit better with their route numbers (which are, understandably, quite unimportant up there). — Rob ( talk) 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
See /Notability#Memorial highways. — Scott5114 ↗ 23:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to start systematically weeding out this neologism. Are there any objections to "overlap" as the standard replacement? It seems like the simplest term, is used by many DOTs, and can be easily conjugated. -- NE2 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So if we do go with what's suggested above:
Do these examples all look good? -- NE2 13:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to make the edits. Please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. -- NE2 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought you might get a kick out of [2]; pre-manual changes it would have been "concurrent with U.S. Route 52 (concurrent with U.S. 62 concurrency) from Aberdeen to Ripley, Ohio". And I edited myself, heh. -- NE2 19:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm a little bit late to this party, but in my opinion: (a) "multiplex" is not a neologism, but rather a somewhat unconventional use of the word (this use is inspired by the description of a multiplex in electronics, in which multiple signals can be sent along the same conductor or bus); (b) "overlap" is a less unwieldy (more wieldy?) word than "concurrency" in all cases. -- Dachannien Talk Contrib 16:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
See talk page - it's a bit more than I can handle on my own, I think. — Rob ( talk) 08:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
A situation that some may be interested in: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 8, provincial highway templates... -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw this on the US 31 page and besides not being a non-conforming/non-collapsible box nor being a part of the project, I really just don't like the idea of it. Other much larger cities don't have it. I was about to TFD the thing, but don't want to run afoul of the project. What say you? -- KelleyCook 05:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Simple fix, collapsed now. I don't see the problem with it, easy way to navigate highways in a particular city. -- Holderca1 13:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be collapsed; just remove the shields and bolding. -- NE2 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of State Highways in Kentucky (1001-2000) -- NE2 13:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Should anything be changed or added before I nominate this as a good article? -- NE2 04:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Indent reset. The 3.0 tags on Wiki are new...last I knew they only had 2.5. Yeah, cc-by-sa is fine for here, I wasn't sure which ones they had now. -- MPD T / C 13:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Does Image:I-95 north at SR 7100.jpg look good? -- NE2 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants there is a new list. We're combining all the USRD participant lists here. Membership will now be universal. Please go and update your info ASAP; if you do not do so by a date in mid-October you will be removed from the project list. All project members will be spammed with this news within the next week. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of auxiliary Interstate Highways unconnected with Parent -- NE2 13:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Bypass -- NE2 07:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Towson Bypass-Burke Avenue-Putty Hill Road-Rossville Boulevard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor Mill Road, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collar City Bridge -- NE2 04:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to create a subpage of this project, or WikiProject Highways, to bring to others' attention and discuss news, like new roads and decommissionings? I'm thinking of something like this:
Essentially it would function both to keep us up-to-date of happenings and to ensure that articles are updated. -- NE2 08:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please add anything relevant to Portal:North American Roads/North American Roads news or discuss at Portal talk:North American Roads/North American Roads news. -- NE2 08:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see why USRD should be lumped together with a crappy project such as CRWP. I'm splitting our portal back out. You can do whatever you want with the North American roads portal. Next time, please discuss. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily object to a North American portal, or even a global Roads portal, but I think having a separate U.S. Roads portal makes finding things simpler. Less to pick through and all of that. — Scott5114 ↗ 23:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting a discussion on Portal talk:U.S. Roads, the obvious place to discuss the portal. -- NE2 23:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
See /Notability#Major arterials. — Scott5114 ↗ 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Bannered routes are a bit of a problem, in being that they're generally too short to get a good article out of. Of course, they're state-numbered highways, which makes them notable enough for an article. So what to do?
Well, I've merged all the bannered routes articles from U.S. 71 into Bannered routes of U.S. Route 71. Notice the fact that {{ Infobox road}} is not used - a smaller custom infobox ({{ usban}}) was created to keep huge infoboxes from spilling over onto other highways, causing stacking and other problems. This infobox only has location and whether it's decommissioned or not, which is all you really need to know about a business loop - the termini are most always the parent highway. I'd like others' thoughts on the proposal and if anyone else has alternate suggestions (no pun intended) of course feel free to bring them to the table. — Scott5114 ↗ 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the "active?" line is necessary; you can have current routes first, and then the last section for former routes, with level 3 headings for each of those. -- NE2 23:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, implemented those suggestions. Anything else, especially about the general proposal (anybody that loves business loop articles)? — Scott5114 ↗ 03:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
What do we do with U.S. Route 101 Alternate (Washington)? The other alternate is U.S. Route 101 Alternate (California), so it's not enough for a bannered routes article. Also note that the state detail article U.S. Route 101 in Washington does not exist. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't support this proposal, and in fact, as far as the Michigan routes go, when I can devote the necessary time, I would propose reversing all the redirects back to the previous pages. Once the individual listings can be fleshed out further, as some have, they would be too long to be combined all together. Also, there is now information removed from some listings since the junctions were only in the full infoboxes, the links to other specific articles on [5] weren't moved over. For instance on the US 31 Bannered article, only the link to BUS US 31 - Pentwater was included, not the others. Why should bannered routes be singled out for combination when in Michigan each is as valid as a single designation as I-75, US 41 or M-22 are, albeit shorter? Some can't be combined, since there is only one BUS US 223 in existance. Does BUS US 223 - Adrian get spared the ax? What's next, pushing all the BUS M-## highways into a single article, regardless of parent route? Or what of the fact that several business routes have existed under different parent routes, I-##, US ## or M-##? Where do these previously separate articles fall when all of the proper redirects are currently in place?
As for the truncated infobox, all the current Michigan business loops/spurs had accurate mileage listings, as well as commissioning/decommissioning dates, and even when the designations were changed (i.e. 1960 as BUS US 12, 1963 as BL I-94). Shouldn't they be reinstated? The current box looks, well.. puny. Imzadi1979 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
location
param). (Anything regarding {{
usban}} should really be placed on its talk page rather than here.)Two things, before anyone merges any more: please redirect to the section, not just to the page (so U.S. Route 31 Business (Muskegon, Michigan) would be #REDIRECT Bannered routes of U.S. Route 31#Muskegon, Michigan, for instance), and please keep the categories, at least the "U.S. Highways in State" ones, on the redirect (see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects). -- NE2 23:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to keep the full Texas list, but for the ones that are currently business routes, use template:main to the bannered routes of US 87 page, and for the former business routes, use template:main from the bannered routes page to the Texas list? -- NE2 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Returning to the possibility of including bannered routes with state-detail articles, I have done so on U.S. Route 219 in New York. If this looks good, I'll add a section to the article structure at WP:USH, but I wanted to collect some thoughts on it first. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
What of something like New Hampshire Route 28 Bypass? It's the only bannered route of NH-28. Should it be merged into New Hampshire Route 28 or left as is? -- Tckma 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There has been a lot of craziness going across the roads projects lately. This threatens all of them. Here is a summary of the problems, as unbiased as I can make it, and listed in order of importance:
Can we at least agree that these problems exist? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I think WP:HWY should hold the power, with each individual country's roads having some power, standardization (possibly individual standardization per project), and editing standards over its own area...such as WP:WPCR for the Canadian roads, WP:USRD for the American roads, and so on. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok - my take: yes - we have problems. Why should the portal be moved? There was nothing wrong to begin with. We're definitely not a functional unit. Did the participant lists have to be merged? No. There's no reason to - users that are part of a state WikiProject now feel compelled to contribute to USRD - The functional unit is grey right now when it comes to USRD - primarily because only less than 1/3 of the states have their own projects - and many of those are inactive. and since when do we need to check - right now USRD is struggling because of many issue - many of which definitely point to the "leadership." Too many of us are stepping on toes when we shouldn't and its making things worse. Perhaps we should get back to editing articles and not worry so much about the administrative side anymore. That's what Wikipedia is for nowadays. I certainly will be doing that. master son T - C 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me put it this way, any project that is set up as a WikiProject, should be entitled, and expected, to function on its own. There should be no need for another project, related or not, to step in and control it. Let individual WikiProjects govern themselves. -Jeff (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that anyone seriously talking about any wikiproject in terms of holding "all the power" is poorly informed about how a wiki works. older ≠ wiser 02:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think a lot of the problems began late in 2006 when I took a break from Wikipedia. When I left, there was a lack of organization within USRD. When I came back, there was a lot of organization, and USRD began assuming control over most of the state wikiprojects. This bothered me at the time, and, on some level still bothers me now. I think a lot of the standardization is good, however, I think there have been too many occasions where WP:USRD has made a decision without consulting the wikiprojects. The lack of discussion over merging project participants into one list is a good example. Unfortunately, this is the way things have changed within USRD. -- Son 18:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The idea of WP:USRD being the subproject for all states without an associated project was a good one, and about all I turn to the WP for. — Rob ( talk) 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that if a project exists, it should function as every other project exists and not have to submit to another project. I believe USRD should be here to assist the state projects and to consolidate functions such as shield and map making that wouldn't make much sense to be done at the state level. I think it was mentioned above that there are 28 state level projects, I don't think it would be difficult to spam those with a link to the discussion here if it is going to be something that affects the state level projects. I don't think anyone is asking anyone to spam every user. -- Holderca1 19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's time to move towards a resolution.
I agree with Holderca1. I think this is what WP:USRD should be used for. We have IH, USH, and the state WPs. USRD should keep standardization for all 28 state WPs, and have direct control over the remaining 32 states that doesn't have a WP. That's my proposal. -- Son 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I reorganized and partially rewrote this several-year-old featured article, and would like comments on whether I did a good job. Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulaski Skyway/archive1. -- NE2 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone has vandalized U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. Well not really, they vandalized a page that is getting called by the info road box in this page. Instead of the US 50 shield, an advertisement for a band's website on myspace is displayed. But only on the Nevada page, the Utah, California, and National pages display fine. I can't find the affected page. Can someone more familiar with how infobox code works help? (and let me know what they did, I almost want to congratulate this vandal for their ingenuity =-) ). Davemeistermoab 19:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Jeff02 reverted Rschen's change in the MDRD participants list, with a summary of brought back participants list, I don't mind there being another "main list", as long as there is still a list here containing only this project's members. Was there any real consensus to merge all members' names into the USRD participants list? All I know that every other project except Maryland didn't mind the change, but we have one that does. Remarks, anyone? — O ( 说 • 喝) 20:30, 21 September 2007 (GMT)
Why is only the U.S. merged? Oh, don't tell me, the Canadian project is "crappy"? -- NE2 02:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason that the participants lists were removed is because we will get users like this [6] who don't follow directions. They didn't even follow the directions to go to the main participants page; how will they notice the same directions when there are duplicate participant lists? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 16:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok - if this is going to happen - then lets suggest that all U.S. State Wikiprojects all merge their participant into one list under
WP:USA Now do you see where I'm going?
master son
T -
C 18:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
:This is
WP:POINT. --
Rschen7754 (
T
C)
18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Since apparently people are complaining, I'm going to propose a compromise. States that wish will have their own participants list, but it should be transcluded into the main participants list. There will still be the option to join all of USRD and not be attached to a specific state, and the "national" users will be discouraged from joining all 28 state projects. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should keep all the lists separate, even being sortable, it is very difficult to find participants from a specific project since it sorts by the first project listed. I say have a separate list for each state, have that transcluded to whatever master list. In addition, have a link to those that work on all the projects. Only problem will be with editors like myself that don't edit nationally, but do contribute to several projects. May just have to deal with those situations. -- Holderca1 19:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
We undo the combination of the participant lists. However, someone else will need to do the reverts. Also, let's let the inactivity notification run its course, since the messages have already been spammed. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 17:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Simple question: should browsing be placed on both the multistate article and the state-detail articles or just on the state-detail articles? This question was asked once before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways/Archive 2#Subpage technicalities; however, nothing came of the discussion. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I was looking over the importance scale today and noticed something. This freeway was built to interstate standards per MDOT. It is of major commerical importance in that it has commerical truck volumes as high as the interstates 96 & 196. It is more of a bypass of Grand Rapids proper for 96-196 than just a local or state important route. Given that both 96 and 196 are rated as high on the scale and that M6 is a bypass of those routes I would think its assestment for importance is rather low considering these facts. If this is the wrong place to put this feel free to either move this to the proper location or just tell me. -- Mihsfbstadium 15:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
We have an article on the main page, albeit as a Did you know?. I created Wurzbach Parkway several days ago, something that I had planned on doing for awhile and never got around to doing it. I hand't even thought of nominating it for DYK because it is more of a forgotten freeway in San Antonio since it's hard to get to it and mainly used by residents that live near to it. Thanks to User:NE2 for coming along and expanding it and nominating it. Lets get back to what we came here for, writing and improving articles. -- Holderca1 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
On Interstate 84 in Oregon, the mileposts (and thus the exit numbers) jump over two miles at I-205 due to a change in planned alignment. How should I show this in the exit list? -- NE2 00:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I created a stub at milepost equation. -- NE2 04:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a few of these out there and they have different structure, different naming convention, different inclusion criteria. I created a cat to put all of these in since most of them didn't have a cat to begin with. Here is the cat: Category:Metropolitan area highway templates. I am sure there are many more that I have missed, feel free to add them to the cat. Should we come up with a design standard for at least the US navboxes? Which cities get them, those larger than a million? What do we include, just freeways, or more? -- Holderca1 14:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
...think again. I did some browsing through the deletion log tonight and noticed that a hefty number of Ohio state route articles with literally an infobox, an external link, and a category had (correctly) been speedy deleted under criteria A1 (no context). It should be noted that these "articles" also lacked a lead, or, for that matter, any prose of any kind - your classic sub-stub. IMO, if this doesn't provide incentive to expand some stubs, or at least ensure our existing stubs aren't substubs, I don't know what will. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
What is a problem is edits like [9]. If you see any of those on your watchlist, please let the editor know not to do it and go through the contributions and revert. -- NE2 06:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe A. Gonsalves Memorial Interchange -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
What should we do about templates that pop up like this one? I am concerned that we will have pages half full of templates such as this and would like to see it go personally - but prior to a tfd I'm requesting opinion on it master son T - C 01:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow... that blue link is almost impossible to read. -- NE2 05:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
{{3di old|95}} Can't we compress this? -- NE2 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
So what makes this fine that wasn't fine about Template:Ontario King's Highways? I think we can abbreviate the state names here and improve the formatting; there's no need for four separate lines to list four spurs on the I-96 template. -- NE2 00:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I can split up CT/RI/MA if that's an issue, or add a few line breaks. -- NE2 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not bad. The presentation seems a little thrown together, but I guess it's a compromise between the old one and no template at all. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the old one to Template:3di old. The old style will still be used except where [[Template:I-{{{1}}} aux]] exists. -- NE2 13:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read and comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#Proposals for clarifications. -- NE2 05:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 495 (North Carolina) -- NE2 12:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Basically, a user has taken it upon himself to a) remove shields from all exit lists and b) convert WP:ELG into an essay. Discussion started at WT:ELG then went all over the place. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I recently merged Interstate 195 (Florida) and Interstate 395 (Florida) into their "hidden" state road designations because (1) the Interstate designation in both cases is a small segment of a larger freeway and (2) it doesn't make much sense to have two articles on the same roadway, especially when one or both articles is a stub. I even cleaned up Florida State Road 112 for the sole purpose of merging I-195 with the article. I was reverted by an editor, who called the designations "separate". Comments requested. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
State Route to Route I understand, but what was wrong with the succession/precession boxes? It made the named highways fit better with their route numbers (which are, understandably, quite unimportant up there). — Rob ( talk) 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
See /Notability#Memorial highways. — Scott5114 ↗ 23:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to start systematically weeding out this neologism. Are there any objections to "overlap" as the standard replacement? It seems like the simplest term, is used by many DOTs, and can be easily conjugated. -- NE2 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So if we do go with what's suggested above:
Do these examples all look good? -- NE2 13:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to make the edits. Please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. -- NE2 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought you might get a kick out of [2]; pre-manual changes it would have been "concurrent with U.S. Route 52 (concurrent with U.S. 62 concurrency) from Aberdeen to Ripley, Ohio". And I edited myself, heh. -- NE2 19:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm a little bit late to this party, but in my opinion: (a) "multiplex" is not a neologism, but rather a somewhat unconventional use of the word (this use is inspired by the description of a multiplex in electronics, in which multiple signals can be sent along the same conductor or bus); (b) "overlap" is a less unwieldy (more wieldy?) word than "concurrency" in all cases. -- Dachannien Talk Contrib 16:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
See talk page - it's a bit more than I can handle on my own, I think. — Rob ( talk) 08:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
A situation that some may be interested in: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 8, provincial highway templates... -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw this on the US 31 page and besides not being a non-conforming/non-collapsible box nor being a part of the project, I really just don't like the idea of it. Other much larger cities don't have it. I was about to TFD the thing, but don't want to run afoul of the project. What say you? -- KelleyCook 05:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Simple fix, collapsed now. I don't see the problem with it, easy way to navigate highways in a particular city. -- Holderca1 13:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be collapsed; just remove the shields and bolding. -- NE2 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of State Highways in Kentucky (1001-2000) -- NE2 13:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Should anything be changed or added before I nominate this as a good article? -- NE2 04:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Indent reset. The 3.0 tags on Wiki are new...last I knew they only had 2.5. Yeah, cc-by-sa is fine for here, I wasn't sure which ones they had now. -- MPD T / C 13:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Does Image:I-95 north at SR 7100.jpg look good? -- NE2 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants there is a new list. We're combining all the USRD participant lists here. Membership will now be universal. Please go and update your info ASAP; if you do not do so by a date in mid-October you will be removed from the project list. All project members will be spammed with this news within the next week. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of auxiliary Interstate Highways unconnected with Parent -- NE2 13:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Bypass -- NE2 07:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Towson Bypass-Burke Avenue-Putty Hill Road-Rossville Boulevard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor Mill Road, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collar City Bridge -- NE2 04:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to create a subpage of this project, or WikiProject Highways, to bring to others' attention and discuss news, like new roads and decommissionings? I'm thinking of something like this:
Essentially it would function both to keep us up-to-date of happenings and to ensure that articles are updated. -- NE2 08:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please add anything relevant to Portal:North American Roads/North American Roads news or discuss at Portal talk:North American Roads/North American Roads news. -- NE2 08:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see why USRD should be lumped together with a crappy project such as CRWP. I'm splitting our portal back out. You can do whatever you want with the North American roads portal. Next time, please discuss. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily object to a North American portal, or even a global Roads portal, but I think having a separate U.S. Roads portal makes finding things simpler. Less to pick through and all of that. — Scott5114 ↗ 23:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting a discussion on Portal talk:U.S. Roads, the obvious place to discuss the portal. -- NE2 23:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
See /Notability#Major arterials. — Scott5114 ↗ 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Bannered routes are a bit of a problem, in being that they're generally too short to get a good article out of. Of course, they're state-numbered highways, which makes them notable enough for an article. So what to do?
Well, I've merged all the bannered routes articles from U.S. 71 into Bannered routes of U.S. Route 71. Notice the fact that {{ Infobox road}} is not used - a smaller custom infobox ({{ usban}}) was created to keep huge infoboxes from spilling over onto other highways, causing stacking and other problems. This infobox only has location and whether it's decommissioned or not, which is all you really need to know about a business loop - the termini are most always the parent highway. I'd like others' thoughts on the proposal and if anyone else has alternate suggestions (no pun intended) of course feel free to bring them to the table. — Scott5114 ↗ 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the "active?" line is necessary; you can have current routes first, and then the last section for former routes, with level 3 headings for each of those. -- NE2 23:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, implemented those suggestions. Anything else, especially about the general proposal (anybody that loves business loop articles)? — Scott5114 ↗ 03:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
What do we do with U.S. Route 101 Alternate (Washington)? The other alternate is U.S. Route 101 Alternate (California), so it's not enough for a bannered routes article. Also note that the state detail article U.S. Route 101 in Washington does not exist. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't support this proposal, and in fact, as far as the Michigan routes go, when I can devote the necessary time, I would propose reversing all the redirects back to the previous pages. Once the individual listings can be fleshed out further, as some have, they would be too long to be combined all together. Also, there is now information removed from some listings since the junctions were only in the full infoboxes, the links to other specific articles on [5] weren't moved over. For instance on the US 31 Bannered article, only the link to BUS US 31 - Pentwater was included, not the others. Why should bannered routes be singled out for combination when in Michigan each is as valid as a single designation as I-75, US 41 or M-22 are, albeit shorter? Some can't be combined, since there is only one BUS US 223 in existance. Does BUS US 223 - Adrian get spared the ax? What's next, pushing all the BUS M-## highways into a single article, regardless of parent route? Or what of the fact that several business routes have existed under different parent routes, I-##, US ## or M-##? Where do these previously separate articles fall when all of the proper redirects are currently in place?
As for the truncated infobox, all the current Michigan business loops/spurs had accurate mileage listings, as well as commissioning/decommissioning dates, and even when the designations were changed (i.e. 1960 as BUS US 12, 1963 as BL I-94). Shouldn't they be reinstated? The current box looks, well.. puny. Imzadi1979 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
location
param). (Anything regarding {{
usban}} should really be placed on its talk page rather than here.)Two things, before anyone merges any more: please redirect to the section, not just to the page (so U.S. Route 31 Business (Muskegon, Michigan) would be #REDIRECT Bannered routes of U.S. Route 31#Muskegon, Michigan, for instance), and please keep the categories, at least the "U.S. Highways in State" ones, on the redirect (see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects). -- NE2 23:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to keep the full Texas list, but for the ones that are currently business routes, use template:main to the bannered routes of US 87 page, and for the former business routes, use template:main from the bannered routes page to the Texas list? -- NE2 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Returning to the possibility of including bannered routes with state-detail articles, I have done so on U.S. Route 219 in New York. If this looks good, I'll add a section to the article structure at WP:USH, but I wanted to collect some thoughts on it first. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
What of something like New Hampshire Route 28 Bypass? It's the only bannered route of NH-28. Should it be merged into New Hampshire Route 28 or left as is? -- Tckma 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There has been a lot of craziness going across the roads projects lately. This threatens all of them. Here is a summary of the problems, as unbiased as I can make it, and listed in order of importance:
Can we at least agree that these problems exist? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I think WP:HWY should hold the power, with each individual country's roads having some power, standardization (possibly individual standardization per project), and editing standards over its own area...such as WP:WPCR for the Canadian roads, WP:USRD for the American roads, and so on. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok - my take: yes - we have problems. Why should the portal be moved? There was nothing wrong to begin with. We're definitely not a functional unit. Did the participant lists have to be merged? No. There's no reason to - users that are part of a state WikiProject now feel compelled to contribute to USRD - The functional unit is grey right now when it comes to USRD - primarily because only less than 1/3 of the states have their own projects - and many of those are inactive. and since when do we need to check - right now USRD is struggling because of many issue - many of which definitely point to the "leadership." Too many of us are stepping on toes when we shouldn't and its making things worse. Perhaps we should get back to editing articles and not worry so much about the administrative side anymore. That's what Wikipedia is for nowadays. I certainly will be doing that. master son T - C 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me put it this way, any project that is set up as a WikiProject, should be entitled, and expected, to function on its own. There should be no need for another project, related or not, to step in and control it. Let individual WikiProjects govern themselves. -Jeff (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that anyone seriously talking about any wikiproject in terms of holding "all the power" is poorly informed about how a wiki works. older ≠ wiser 02:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think a lot of the problems began late in 2006 when I took a break from Wikipedia. When I left, there was a lack of organization within USRD. When I came back, there was a lot of organization, and USRD began assuming control over most of the state wikiprojects. This bothered me at the time, and, on some level still bothers me now. I think a lot of the standardization is good, however, I think there have been too many occasions where WP:USRD has made a decision without consulting the wikiprojects. The lack of discussion over merging project participants into one list is a good example. Unfortunately, this is the way things have changed within USRD. -- Son 18:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The idea of WP:USRD being the subproject for all states without an associated project was a good one, and about all I turn to the WP for. — Rob ( talk) 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that if a project exists, it should function as every other project exists and not have to submit to another project. I believe USRD should be here to assist the state projects and to consolidate functions such as shield and map making that wouldn't make much sense to be done at the state level. I think it was mentioned above that there are 28 state level projects, I don't think it would be difficult to spam those with a link to the discussion here if it is going to be something that affects the state level projects. I don't think anyone is asking anyone to spam every user. -- Holderca1 19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's time to move towards a resolution.
I agree with Holderca1. I think this is what WP:USRD should be used for. We have IH, USH, and the state WPs. USRD should keep standardization for all 28 state WPs, and have direct control over the remaining 32 states that doesn't have a WP. That's my proposal. -- Son 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I reorganized and partially rewrote this several-year-old featured article, and would like comments on whether I did a good job. Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulaski Skyway/archive1. -- NE2 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone has vandalized U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. Well not really, they vandalized a page that is getting called by the info road box in this page. Instead of the US 50 shield, an advertisement for a band's website on myspace is displayed. But only on the Nevada page, the Utah, California, and National pages display fine. I can't find the affected page. Can someone more familiar with how infobox code works help? (and let me know what they did, I almost want to congratulate this vandal for their ingenuity =-) ). Davemeistermoab 19:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Jeff02 reverted Rschen's change in the MDRD participants list, with a summary of brought back participants list, I don't mind there being another "main list", as long as there is still a list here containing only this project's members. Was there any real consensus to merge all members' names into the USRD participants list? All I know that every other project except Maryland didn't mind the change, but we have one that does. Remarks, anyone? — O ( 说 • 喝) 20:30, 21 September 2007 (GMT)
Why is only the U.S. merged? Oh, don't tell me, the Canadian project is "crappy"? -- NE2 02:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason that the participants lists were removed is because we will get users like this [6] who don't follow directions. They didn't even follow the directions to go to the main participants page; how will they notice the same directions when there are duplicate participant lists? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 16:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok - if this is going to happen - then lets suggest that all U.S. State Wikiprojects all merge their participant into one list under
WP:USA Now do you see where I'm going?
master son
T -
C 18:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
:This is
WP:POINT. --
Rschen7754 (
T
C)
18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Since apparently people are complaining, I'm going to propose a compromise. States that wish will have their own participants list, but it should be transcluded into the main participants list. There will still be the option to join all of USRD and not be attached to a specific state, and the "national" users will be discouraged from joining all 28 state projects. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should keep all the lists separate, even being sortable, it is very difficult to find participants from a specific project since it sorts by the first project listed. I say have a separate list for each state, have that transcluded to whatever master list. In addition, have a link to those that work on all the projects. Only problem will be with editors like myself that don't edit nationally, but do contribute to several projects. May just have to deal with those situations. -- Holderca1 19:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
We undo the combination of the participant lists. However, someone else will need to do the reverts. Also, let's let the inactivity notification run its course, since the messages have already been spammed. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 17:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Simple question: should browsing be placed on both the multistate article and the state-detail articles or just on the state-detail articles? This question was asked once before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways/Archive 2#Subpage technicalities; however, nothing came of the discussion. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I was looking over the importance scale today and noticed something. This freeway was built to interstate standards per MDOT. It is of major commerical importance in that it has commerical truck volumes as high as the interstates 96 & 196. It is more of a bypass of Grand Rapids proper for 96-196 than just a local or state important route. Given that both 96 and 196 are rated as high on the scale and that M6 is a bypass of those routes I would think its assestment for importance is rather low considering these facts. If this is the wrong place to put this feel free to either move this to the proper location or just tell me. -- Mihsfbstadium 15:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
We have an article on the main page, albeit as a Did you know?. I created Wurzbach Parkway several days ago, something that I had planned on doing for awhile and never got around to doing it. I hand't even thought of nominating it for DYK because it is more of a forgotten freeway in San Antonio since it's hard to get to it and mainly used by residents that live near to it. Thanks to User:NE2 for coming along and expanding it and nominating it. Lets get back to what we came here for, writing and improving articles. -- Holderca1 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
On Interstate 84 in Oregon, the mileposts (and thus the exit numbers) jump over two miles at I-205 due to a change in planned alignment. How should I show this in the exit list? -- NE2 00:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I created a stub at milepost equation. -- NE2 04:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a few of these out there and they have different structure, different naming convention, different inclusion criteria. I created a cat to put all of these in since most of them didn't have a cat to begin with. Here is the cat: Category:Metropolitan area highway templates. I am sure there are many more that I have missed, feel free to add them to the cat. Should we come up with a design standard for at least the US navboxes? Which cities get them, those larger than a million? What do we include, just freeways, or more? -- Holderca1 14:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
...think again. I did some browsing through the deletion log tonight and noticed that a hefty number of Ohio state route articles with literally an infobox, an external link, and a category had (correctly) been speedy deleted under criteria A1 (no context). It should be noted that these "articles" also lacked a lead, or, for that matter, any prose of any kind - your classic sub-stub. IMO, if this doesn't provide incentive to expand some stubs, or at least ensure our existing stubs aren't substubs, I don't know what will. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
What is a problem is edits like [9]. If you see any of those on your watchlist, please let the editor know not to do it and go through the contributions and revert. -- NE2 06:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe A. Gonsalves Memorial Interchange -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
What should we do about templates that pop up like this one? I am concerned that we will have pages half full of templates such as this and would like to see it go personally - but prior to a tfd I'm requesting opinion on it master son T - C 01:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow... that blue link is almost impossible to read. -- NE2 05:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
{{3di old|95}} Can't we compress this? -- NE2 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
So what makes this fine that wasn't fine about Template:Ontario King's Highways? I think we can abbreviate the state names here and improve the formatting; there's no need for four separate lines to list four spurs on the I-96 template. -- NE2 00:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I can split up CT/RI/MA if that's an issue, or add a few line breaks. -- NE2 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not bad. The presentation seems a little thrown together, but I guess it's a compromise between the old one and no template at all. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the old one to Template:3di old. The old style will still be used except where [[Template:I-{{{1}}} aux]] exists. -- NE2 13:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read and comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#Proposals for clarifications. -- NE2 05:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 495 (North Carolina) -- NE2 12:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Basically, a user has taken it upon himself to a) remove shields from all exit lists and b) convert WP:ELG into an essay. Discussion started at WT:ELG then went all over the place. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I recently merged Interstate 195 (Florida) and Interstate 395 (Florida) into their "hidden" state road designations because (1) the Interstate designation in both cases is a small segment of a larger freeway and (2) it doesn't make much sense to have two articles on the same roadway, especially when one or both articles is a stub. I even cleaned up Florida State Road 112 for the sole purpose of merging I-195 with the article. I was reverted by an editor, who called the designations "separate". Comments requested. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)