![]() | 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 | Archive 3 |
In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:
Regards, Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Project page currently calls for the navigation bar (or browse box) to go at the bottom of the page. What's the reasoning for this? For single state routes the navigation box belongs with the main infobox. What is driving this is changes made to U.S. Route 491 during it's FAC. Compare [1] with [2]. Although against project standards by the letter of the law, I don't see the harm, and is more consistent with what is done on other pages. Now I can see where for a route that traverses a lot of states, like U.S. Route 50, this may be inappropriate. Could the wording be relaxed to say "on U.S. Highway articles with 3 or fewer states where no single state articles will be created, the navigation box can be combined with the main infobox" what say ye? Dave ( talk) 05:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should keep it on the bottom. If we set a limit to the number of states in the infobox, if say Interstate 90 didn't have states in the infobox, newbies would be asking where the browse bar is. So let's be consistent and do one practice. My preference would be putting it at the bottom of the article - this way, the infobox will have less of a chance of drowning images out. C L — 23:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I like it better at the top. Considering longer, multi-state route are split up into separate articles, the top is the ideal location in my mind. (If we didn't have separate state articles for the routes, I'd advocate the opposite.) -- Son ( talk) 19:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The following is copied from the discussion at: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/U.S. Route 491
The major cities box doesn't render properly on my browser (Safari). The major towns header appears in its own cell off to the right of the "table", with a big blank spot above the list of towns. This is easily fixed by removing float:right; from the code for that row.
So what should we do, the code on the US-491 article was copied verbatim from the structure section on this project page. Should the float:right; be removed from the code recommended on the project page?
On a semi-related note, this page still encourages a miscellany section, this is now discouraged per WP guidelines. I'll remove that section once consensus is achieved on the above. Dave ( talk) 03:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like from our whopping two person concesus, the appropriate thing to do is to 1- eliminate the offending code. 2- revise the project page to state the major cities infobox is optional and should be used if information can be sourced and is not redundant with another section of the article? Any objections? Dave ( talk) 04:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Another issue raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 491:
A person at FAC has opined that the "See also" section called for on this project page, with the links to parent and sibling highways is unnecessary. Quoting from the FAC: I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if parent and child routes are important enough to be included in every article See also, they should be worked into every article's prose instead. Opinions welcome. Dave ( talk) 04:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I recognize the above discussion is not enough to generate consensus, however, as the discussion is leaning towards one option. Here is what I propose:
Objections, speak now or forever hold your peace? =-) Dave ( talk) 06:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
While the US_Route_20 page says that the road ends in Kenmore Square in Boston, where it intersects Route 2, Google maps shows 20 continuing through Boston's back bay along Comm Ave where it ends at the Public Garden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.60.199 ( talk • contribs)
I've been browsing through the US Highway articles, and something keeps popping up which is driving me batty. States are listed south-north or west-east, in accordance with standard mileposting. That's dandy; I approve. However, it's very jarring to read through a route description which is going south-north by state... yet the description of the route within the states are reading north-south, preventing the curious reader from "following" the route along easily. (It's like counting upward by going "9, 8, 7, ... 3, 2, 1, 19, 18, 17, ... 12, 11, 10, 29...") As such, I suggest that south-north and west-east also be adopted as a standard for the paragraph text within the state subheads. JFMorse ( talk) 13:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. §hep Talk 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see WT:USRD. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:46, 5 March 2009 (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 | Archive 3 |
In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:
Regards, Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Project page currently calls for the navigation bar (or browse box) to go at the bottom of the page. What's the reasoning for this? For single state routes the navigation box belongs with the main infobox. What is driving this is changes made to U.S. Route 491 during it's FAC. Compare [1] with [2]. Although against project standards by the letter of the law, I don't see the harm, and is more consistent with what is done on other pages. Now I can see where for a route that traverses a lot of states, like U.S. Route 50, this may be inappropriate. Could the wording be relaxed to say "on U.S. Highway articles with 3 or fewer states where no single state articles will be created, the navigation box can be combined with the main infobox" what say ye? Dave ( talk) 05:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should keep it on the bottom. If we set a limit to the number of states in the infobox, if say Interstate 90 didn't have states in the infobox, newbies would be asking where the browse bar is. So let's be consistent and do one practice. My preference would be putting it at the bottom of the article - this way, the infobox will have less of a chance of drowning images out. C L — 23:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I like it better at the top. Considering longer, multi-state route are split up into separate articles, the top is the ideal location in my mind. (If we didn't have separate state articles for the routes, I'd advocate the opposite.) -- Son ( talk) 19:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The following is copied from the discussion at: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/U.S. Route 491
The major cities box doesn't render properly on my browser (Safari). The major towns header appears in its own cell off to the right of the "table", with a big blank spot above the list of towns. This is easily fixed by removing float:right; from the code for that row.
So what should we do, the code on the US-491 article was copied verbatim from the structure section on this project page. Should the float:right; be removed from the code recommended on the project page?
On a semi-related note, this page still encourages a miscellany section, this is now discouraged per WP guidelines. I'll remove that section once consensus is achieved on the above. Dave ( talk) 03:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like from our whopping two person concesus, the appropriate thing to do is to 1- eliminate the offending code. 2- revise the project page to state the major cities infobox is optional and should be used if information can be sourced and is not redundant with another section of the article? Any objections? Dave ( talk) 04:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Another issue raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 491:
A person at FAC has opined that the "See also" section called for on this project page, with the links to parent and sibling highways is unnecessary. Quoting from the FAC: I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if parent and child routes are important enough to be included in every article See also, they should be worked into every article's prose instead. Opinions welcome. Dave ( talk) 04:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I recognize the above discussion is not enough to generate consensus, however, as the discussion is leaning towards one option. Here is what I propose:
Objections, speak now or forever hold your peace? =-) Dave ( talk) 06:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
While the US_Route_20 page says that the road ends in Kenmore Square in Boston, where it intersects Route 2, Google maps shows 20 continuing through Boston's back bay along Comm Ave where it ends at the Public Garden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.60.199 ( talk • contribs)
I've been browsing through the US Highway articles, and something keeps popping up which is driving me batty. States are listed south-north or west-east, in accordance with standard mileposting. That's dandy; I approve. However, it's very jarring to read through a route description which is going south-north by state... yet the description of the route within the states are reading north-south, preventing the curious reader from "following" the route along easily. (It's like counting upward by going "9, 8, 7, ... 3, 2, 1, 19, 18, 17, ... 12, 11, 10, 29...") As such, I suggest that south-north and west-east also be adopted as a standard for the paragraph text within the state subheads. JFMorse ( talk) 13:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. §hep Talk 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see WT:USRD. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)