![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 |
If anyone's been following developments at WT:USRD lately, or looked at many highway articles recently, you'd have noticed that the header bars in the infobox switched to a green that's similar to guide sign green. There's also a brown for use on historic, scenic and park roads. The USRD guidelines that were crafted are that this color should only be used on highways that meet a two question test. 1) Is the road a named auto trail? 2) Is the road an historic, scenic or park road that uses brown signage? Green guide signage was developed in the 1950s for the Interstates, and if there were another standard for signage, it was developed after the auto trails. For that reason, the auto trails are using the brown=historic convention. As for part two, the roads that under NPS or NFS jurisdiction typically have either brown reassurance markers or use brown guide signage instead of green.
The reason I've repeating this here is that some Texas highway articles are using the brown type. Farm to Market Road 390 and Texas Recreational Road 2 have brown reassurance markers. That's fine. I just want to double check on cases like Texas Park Road 27, Texas State Highway OSR, or Ranch Road 1 to make sure things are good with respect to the guidelines. If certain type codes should blanket use the brown, let us know and we'll program the template to default that type to brown. Imzadi 1979 → 07:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
|header_type=historic
unless it's a one-time exception.
Imzadi
1979
→
02:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Apparently someone out there has taken issue with an FM having an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Farm_to_Market_Road_752
I've done a LOT of work in the last several weeks on TX road articles, especially FM/RM ones. Now someone (obviously not someone with knowledge of WP's TX Road article efforts) thinks there's no reason or worthiness to having a road represented? OK, fine, sure, I haven't yet gotten fully up to speed on the constructs/ways/means on how articles should look, but I don't feel that an article that covers a real, legitimate subject that has other similar representation here already should get the boot. Please discuss. I hope I haven't wasted someone's time and bandwidth around here. Awtribute ( talk) 09:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
One thing I have seen as I've started the editing journey and looked over many MANY TX maps, is something I've not seen brought up here (or other online road-related forums) before. There are a few FMs/RMs with a sort-of built-in Spur, numbered the same as the FM/RM it's attached to, but not signed as
but rather as
I found one like this in Freestone County northwest of Teague on FM 1366 north of US 84. A spur is noted in the TxDOT Designation File listing, but if you look up by '1366', you won't find a Spur listing there. Yet, when you turn on the Spur road, you see this... Should these separate Spurs be placed within the FM/RM article (for the FM or RM they connect to), or should they be in with the Spur lists? I say the former, as TxDOT doesn't seem to track these Spurs like the pure Spur instances. Awtribute ( talk) 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Sec. 225.026. FARM-TO-MARKET ROAD 390; SCENIC HIGHWAY. (a) Farm-to-Market Road 390 in Washington County is a scenic highway.
(b) The department shall design and construct markers indicating the highway number, the designation as a scenic highway, and any other appropriate information.
(c) The department shall erect a marker at each end of the scenic highway and at intermediate sites along the highway that the department determines are appropriate.
The route retains its Farm to Market designation and route number according to the statute. Changing the route shield to say "Scenic Road" would technically violate the statute by changing the Farm designation on the shield since the Legislature did not itself change the name of the road, but merely recognized it as scenic. The brown shield was probably what TxDOT decided was the most cost effective way to implement the legislative mandate. As far as why the Legislature did that, I have no clue. The Legislature does strange things. There is a historic distrust of the Legislature which is why it is limited to regular sessions that last only 140 days every two years with the local joke being that the printers of the 1876 Constitution accidentally transposed those numbers. Fortguy ( talk) 06:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Transportation Code Chapter 225, State Highway Names
For what it's worth, {{
Jct}} will look for a spur shield if you enter the type as FM-Spur.
Example:{{Jct|state=TX|FM-Spur|390}}
gets you
FM Spur 390 –
Fredddie
™
00:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Up to now, since finding the FM/RM undesignated Spur occurrences, there have been no overlaps with any of the active regular Spurs. Last week, while putting together the South Plains portion of the FM/RM-by-county list, I discovered an FM Spur (54) in Petersburg (south of Plainview) and a regular active Spur in Harlingen (Spur 54). Whenever the articles are formulated for each, would there need to be some kind of top-of-article notation on each referencing the other (to somehow avoid confusion)? It's kind of hard to believe that TxDOT would let 2 different like-numbered Spurs (or any other kind of road) exist. Awtribute ( talk) 13:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Just an update to y'all. TXSH has 401 out of the 4917 stubs for all of USRD, or 8.15%. Any thoughts on where some can be expanded, merged or even *gasp* deleted to affect a reduction in the count? Imzadi 1979 → 21:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
#FM 1
anchor tag yet still direct the link to the specific subsection of the list. How does that sound?
Imzadi
1979
→
19:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)group=
parameter. <ref name=Foo group=Bar>Reference here...</ref>
will create something like [Bar 1] for the footnote tag. Then use {{reflist |group=Bar}}
to group all of the Bar references together. I only use this technique to separate footnotes that are explanatory (group=note
) from regular reference footnotes, and I wouldn't really recommend it for this sort of list.
Imzadi
1979
→
22:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
== ==
, place a semicolon (;) at the start of the line. That will make the line bold without making it a heading. It gets to be a bit of a problem having multiple headings with the same name. Any roads that only have their termini listed in the table could have the table removed completely.
Imzadi
1979
→
22:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Off hand, I'm not sure how many of these there are, but in some counties, there is a list of highways in the county and a template listing the highways in that county.
Example:
I think there should be one or the other, but not both. The information in the lists would be better suited for the highway articles themselves. In some instances, like the business highways, there is more information on the list than there is in the actual article. The templates are easier to maintain as well – just set it and forget it. That being said, I support the templates.
I will post this on WT:USRD to get more voices in this discussion. – Fredddie ™ 22:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
There are discrepancies in how the state subproject directs editors regarding article layout. Most Texas articles that have the main three article section have layouts in the following order per WP:TXSH#Structure: History, Route description, Major intersections or Exit list. WP:USRD/STDS#Article layout, however, puts the history section after the route description section. Changing the guidelines to conform with the national project would involve checking close to 140 class C or higher articles for editing. Also, the Texas subproject's guidelines for a "Notes" article section could lose the reference to oddities and trivia since Wikipedia generally encourages putting that stuff in the article prose rather than creating trivia lists. Fortguy ( talk) 02:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This should get pretty close but I would need to test it before I could be positive. There is a margin of error to this as well so I wouldn't recommend it as a bot task. It wouldn't be hard to glance at it to see if its right before you click save though.
==([ ]*)History[ ]*==(.*?)==[ ]*Route[ _]+description[ ]*==(.*?)==
==$1Route description$1==$3==$1History$1==$2==
--
Kumioko (
talk)
03:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
On the state subproject's page, I have moved the history section after the road description, and I have removed the notes subsection. I will undergo a review of the whole article layout section comparing it to the national standard and rewrite it where necessary to reflect local conditions. Fortguy ( talk) 16:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to start merging FMs and RMs into lists post-haste. Has there been any discussion on how to do it? I think the best way is to go by number, such as List of Texas Farm to Market Routes (1-50). I would include RMs on the FM lists and have List of Texas Ranch to Market Routes (1-50) redirect to the FM list. Any thoughts? – Fredddie ™ 03:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
*Just to let you guys know, we have a gentleman's agreement about assessment around USRD. Basically if you have something that obviously fits the formula, you can reassess your own articles up to C-Class without flagging it for someone else. Of the Big Three (RD, History, JL) if it has none or one section=Stub, two sections=Start, all three=C. If a section is gibberish or essentially missing, feel free to discount its existence for assessment. Imzadi 1979 → 03:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.
The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I have created the following templates for citing online historic highway maps hosted by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission:
All of these templates support the accessdate= parameter, and the 1933 template also supports section= as that map has grid references in the margin. Fortguy ( talk) 03:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
In the most recent (2010 Revision 3) Standard Highway Sign Designs for Texas [3], TxDOT has changed the toll road shield to appear as white on blue, rather than the previous blue on white. With the help of Imzadi 1979 I have edited the existing toll road shields in Commons to reflect the new scheme, and have saved them with new names. They appear in commons:Category:Texas State Highway Toll shields. -- Gridlock Joe ( talk) 21:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. -- Rs chen 7754 02:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This is an open invitation to anyone interested in helping to update the information on the various Texas projects and portals. The information is generally out-of-date, sometimes by years. Every little bit helps. Every small improvement adds to the larger whole. Together, we can get the Texas pages to look current and helpful to visitors.
These two Category links will take you to the various pages:
Anyone interested in improving the basic look and structure, could open a WP:RfC. Dialogue is good for the project.
These are areas I see could be improved, in addition to miscellaneous information on the portal and project pages:
- Maile66 ( talk) 19:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a proposal to demote all state highway WikiProjects to task forces; see WT:USRD. -- Rs chen 7754 05:11, 15 January 2012 (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 1 | Archive 2 |
If anyone's been following developments at WT:USRD lately, or looked at many highway articles recently, you'd have noticed that the header bars in the infobox switched to a green that's similar to guide sign green. There's also a brown for use on historic, scenic and park roads. The USRD guidelines that were crafted are that this color should only be used on highways that meet a two question test. 1) Is the road a named auto trail? 2) Is the road an historic, scenic or park road that uses brown signage? Green guide signage was developed in the 1950s for the Interstates, and if there were another standard for signage, it was developed after the auto trails. For that reason, the auto trails are using the brown=historic convention. As for part two, the roads that under NPS or NFS jurisdiction typically have either brown reassurance markers or use brown guide signage instead of green.
The reason I've repeating this here is that some Texas highway articles are using the brown type. Farm to Market Road 390 and Texas Recreational Road 2 have brown reassurance markers. That's fine. I just want to double check on cases like Texas Park Road 27, Texas State Highway OSR, or Ranch Road 1 to make sure things are good with respect to the guidelines. If certain type codes should blanket use the brown, let us know and we'll program the template to default that type to brown. Imzadi 1979 → 07:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
|header_type=historic
unless it's a one-time exception.
Imzadi
1979
→
02:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Apparently someone out there has taken issue with an FM having an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Farm_to_Market_Road_752
I've done a LOT of work in the last several weeks on TX road articles, especially FM/RM ones. Now someone (obviously not someone with knowledge of WP's TX Road article efforts) thinks there's no reason or worthiness to having a road represented? OK, fine, sure, I haven't yet gotten fully up to speed on the constructs/ways/means on how articles should look, but I don't feel that an article that covers a real, legitimate subject that has other similar representation here already should get the boot. Please discuss. I hope I haven't wasted someone's time and bandwidth around here. Awtribute ( talk) 09:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
One thing I have seen as I've started the editing journey and looked over many MANY TX maps, is something I've not seen brought up here (or other online road-related forums) before. There are a few FMs/RMs with a sort-of built-in Spur, numbered the same as the FM/RM it's attached to, but not signed as
but rather as
I found one like this in Freestone County northwest of Teague on FM 1366 north of US 84. A spur is noted in the TxDOT Designation File listing, but if you look up by '1366', you won't find a Spur listing there. Yet, when you turn on the Spur road, you see this... Should these separate Spurs be placed within the FM/RM article (for the FM or RM they connect to), or should they be in with the Spur lists? I say the former, as TxDOT doesn't seem to track these Spurs like the pure Spur instances. Awtribute ( talk) 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Sec. 225.026. FARM-TO-MARKET ROAD 390; SCENIC HIGHWAY. (a) Farm-to-Market Road 390 in Washington County is a scenic highway.
(b) The department shall design and construct markers indicating the highway number, the designation as a scenic highway, and any other appropriate information.
(c) The department shall erect a marker at each end of the scenic highway and at intermediate sites along the highway that the department determines are appropriate.
The route retains its Farm to Market designation and route number according to the statute. Changing the route shield to say "Scenic Road" would technically violate the statute by changing the Farm designation on the shield since the Legislature did not itself change the name of the road, but merely recognized it as scenic. The brown shield was probably what TxDOT decided was the most cost effective way to implement the legislative mandate. As far as why the Legislature did that, I have no clue. The Legislature does strange things. There is a historic distrust of the Legislature which is why it is limited to regular sessions that last only 140 days every two years with the local joke being that the printers of the 1876 Constitution accidentally transposed those numbers. Fortguy ( talk) 06:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Transportation Code Chapter 225, State Highway Names
For what it's worth, {{
Jct}} will look for a spur shield if you enter the type as FM-Spur.
Example:{{Jct|state=TX|FM-Spur|390}}
gets you
FM Spur 390 –
Fredddie
™
00:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Up to now, since finding the FM/RM undesignated Spur occurrences, there have been no overlaps with any of the active regular Spurs. Last week, while putting together the South Plains portion of the FM/RM-by-county list, I discovered an FM Spur (54) in Petersburg (south of Plainview) and a regular active Spur in Harlingen (Spur 54). Whenever the articles are formulated for each, would there need to be some kind of top-of-article notation on each referencing the other (to somehow avoid confusion)? It's kind of hard to believe that TxDOT would let 2 different like-numbered Spurs (or any other kind of road) exist. Awtribute ( talk) 13:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Just an update to y'all. TXSH has 401 out of the 4917 stubs for all of USRD, or 8.15%. Any thoughts on where some can be expanded, merged or even *gasp* deleted to affect a reduction in the count? Imzadi 1979 → 21:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
#FM 1
anchor tag yet still direct the link to the specific subsection of the list. How does that sound?
Imzadi
1979
→
19:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)group=
parameter. <ref name=Foo group=Bar>Reference here...</ref>
will create something like [Bar 1] for the footnote tag. Then use {{reflist |group=Bar}}
to group all of the Bar references together. I only use this technique to separate footnotes that are explanatory (group=note
) from regular reference footnotes, and I wouldn't really recommend it for this sort of list.
Imzadi
1979
→
22:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
== ==
, place a semicolon (;) at the start of the line. That will make the line bold without making it a heading. It gets to be a bit of a problem having multiple headings with the same name. Any roads that only have their termini listed in the table could have the table removed completely.
Imzadi
1979
→
22:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Off hand, I'm not sure how many of these there are, but in some counties, there is a list of highways in the county and a template listing the highways in that county.
Example:
I think there should be one or the other, but not both. The information in the lists would be better suited for the highway articles themselves. In some instances, like the business highways, there is more information on the list than there is in the actual article. The templates are easier to maintain as well – just set it and forget it. That being said, I support the templates.
I will post this on WT:USRD to get more voices in this discussion. – Fredddie ™ 22:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
There are discrepancies in how the state subproject directs editors regarding article layout. Most Texas articles that have the main three article section have layouts in the following order per WP:TXSH#Structure: History, Route description, Major intersections or Exit list. WP:USRD/STDS#Article layout, however, puts the history section after the route description section. Changing the guidelines to conform with the national project would involve checking close to 140 class C or higher articles for editing. Also, the Texas subproject's guidelines for a "Notes" article section could lose the reference to oddities and trivia since Wikipedia generally encourages putting that stuff in the article prose rather than creating trivia lists. Fortguy ( talk) 02:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This should get pretty close but I would need to test it before I could be positive. There is a margin of error to this as well so I wouldn't recommend it as a bot task. It wouldn't be hard to glance at it to see if its right before you click save though.
==([ ]*)History[ ]*==(.*?)==[ ]*Route[ _]+description[ ]*==(.*?)==
==$1Route description$1==$3==$1History$1==$2==
--
Kumioko (
talk)
03:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
On the state subproject's page, I have moved the history section after the road description, and I have removed the notes subsection. I will undergo a review of the whole article layout section comparing it to the national standard and rewrite it where necessary to reflect local conditions. Fortguy ( talk) 16:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to start merging FMs and RMs into lists post-haste. Has there been any discussion on how to do it? I think the best way is to go by number, such as List of Texas Farm to Market Routes (1-50). I would include RMs on the FM lists and have List of Texas Ranch to Market Routes (1-50) redirect to the FM list. Any thoughts? – Fredddie ™ 03:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
*Just to let you guys know, we have a gentleman's agreement about assessment around USRD. Basically if you have something that obviously fits the formula, you can reassess your own articles up to C-Class without flagging it for someone else. Of the Big Three (RD, History, JL) if it has none or one section=Stub, two sections=Start, all three=C. If a section is gibberish or essentially missing, feel free to discount its existence for assessment. Imzadi 1979 → 03:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.
The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I have created the following templates for citing online historic highway maps hosted by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission:
All of these templates support the accessdate= parameter, and the 1933 template also supports section= as that map has grid references in the margin. Fortguy ( talk) 03:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
In the most recent (2010 Revision 3) Standard Highway Sign Designs for Texas [3], TxDOT has changed the toll road shield to appear as white on blue, rather than the previous blue on white. With the help of Imzadi 1979 I have edited the existing toll road shields in Commons to reflect the new scheme, and have saved them with new names. They appear in commons:Category:Texas State Highway Toll shields. -- Gridlock Joe ( talk) 21:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. -- Rs chen 7754 02:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This is an open invitation to anyone interested in helping to update the information on the various Texas projects and portals. The information is generally out-of-date, sometimes by years. Every little bit helps. Every small improvement adds to the larger whole. Together, we can get the Texas pages to look current and helpful to visitors.
These two Category links will take you to the various pages:
Anyone interested in improving the basic look and structure, could open a WP:RfC. Dialogue is good for the project.
These are areas I see could be improved, in addition to miscellaneous information on the portal and project pages:
- Maile66 ( talk) 19:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a proposal to demote all state highway WikiProjects to task forces; see WT:USRD. -- Rs chen 7754 05:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)