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. |
I tried to join IRC and I got a notification that said "This channel requires that you have registered and identified yourself with the network's nickname registration services (e.g. NickServ). Please see the documentation of this network's nickname registration services that should be found in the MOTD (/motd to display it)." What am I supposed to do about it? Dough 48 72 00:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
A few months ago, I had an idea to create a template to handle references to the National Bridge Inventory, a Federal Highway Administration database that includes information about every bridge in the United States. The information in the database is conveniently arranged with search capabilities at nationalbridges.com. I am ready to start moving forward with this project, but first I wanted to get some feedback on several issues.
There are probably other issues to discuss, but I am drawing a blank right now. V C 17:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
During 2011, we sent over 120 articles to GAN. During the first six months of 2012, we have sent over 110 articles to GAN. Keep up the good work! -- Rs chen 7754 08:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Apparently we want to put WP:SPAM in road articles? So if a turnpike plaza has a McDonald's, that should be stated? This is not done elsewhere in Wikipedia, BWTH. Ignore all rules, right? Student7 ( talk) 21:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a call for submissions to the next issue of the newsletter. Please add anything you want included in the Newsroom.
As a special reminder, to whomever does the leaderboard update for this issue, there is a lag in between the actual counts of articles for each assessment and what is being displayed on the tables. These statistics should probably be double-checked by hand and update manually for the newsletter submission. Imzadi 1979 → 09:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Should it have its own page or be a redirect somewhere? I created it just for fun. Tinton5 ( talk) 20:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Did we ever come to any sort of agreement on whether or not the articles on the state departments of transportation, or their equivalents, fall within our scope? I seem to think we had about three possible options:
Dealing with Michigan as an example, the Michigan State Highway Department was created in 1905 (Michigan Department of State Highways after 1965), and had the various aviation, marine, rail, public transit and non-motorized transportations functions merged into it in 1973. The new agency was called the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation until the name was simplified to its current form in 1978. MDOT celebrated its centennial in 2005, based on the 1905 creation date of its highways-only predecessor. I guess at least in Michigan's case, Michigan State Trunkline Highway System (and its subordinate lists and articles) and List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan (and its subordinate articles) would function as the USRD-specific subarticles to the department. The MDOT article would deal with a summary of those topics in addition to the State Transportation Commission, the Michigan Aeronautics Commission, the Bureau of Aeronautics and Freight Services, the state's Amtrak services, etc. While the largest and most visible function of MDOT is probably the highway system, the article will be touching on planes, trains, boats, and buses too. Especially since we have articles that deal with the highway system itself as a topic, the DOT's history and highway functions are really a summary of the those articles. I'd untag MDOT on the basis that just because Michigan discusses transportation in the state in general as well as listing some highways, we wouldn't tag the state article too. My opinion is that for many states, the same logical would hold as well, especially if there's an article on the highway system, or a main list article that covers it in sufficient detail.
Looking at Category:State departments of transportation of the United States, Maryland State Highway Administration, Massachusetts Highway Department (unless merged into Massachusetts Department of Transportation), and Nebraska Department of Roads; and agencies like the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority in Category:Expressway authorities wouldn't necessarily fall outside of our scope because they're all limited to highway-only functions.
Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 11:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Floydian ( talk · contribs) and I tried to get the 4Mth article. While unfortunately, that went to another article, Idaho State Highway 48 got mentioned in the press release: [4] -- Rs chen 7754 00:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding whether the mention of M-22 merchandise is external promotion. Comments would be appreciated. -- Rs chen 7754 08:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
M-114 had three termini at the time it was decommissioned in the 1940s. Any ideas on how best to display this in the infobox? I'd use the sections, except that the leg along 3 Mile Road was signed the same way as the other two legs along East Beltline Avenue north and south of that intersection when the highway was decommissioned. I'm thinking a simple third terminus, or |terminus_c=
with the accompanying |direction_c=West
would work.
Imzadi 1979
→ 04:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Who supports the creation of Category:New Jersey Turnpike Authority, with subcategories Category:New Jersey Turnpike and create a Category:Garden State Parkway category, since both roads are maintained by the NJTA. This gave me the idea, with Category:Pennsylvania Turnpike currently being discussed for a name change. Tinton5 ( talk) 00:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I try to log on and i get the message " #wikipedia-en-roads #wikimedia-overflow Forwarding to another channel". Dough 48 72 22:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I have updated the USRD template to automatically generate the needs-kml parameter. If an article should not have a KML, you still need to say needs-kml=NA; however, it should be taken care of for you otherwise.
This was my first time dealing with complicated template logic; I'm pretty sure everything works, but if you notice anything broken, let us know so we can fix it. -- Rs chen 7754 10:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Article alerts doesn't seem to be working, so here is an AFD of our article that was started today: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370. -- Rs chen 7754 06:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
In related news, I think it would behoove us to not mention the gains we made during the GAN drive in the forthcoming newsletter. – Fredddie ™ 04:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:NeverLeavesBurrillville has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
According to the Statewide Planning Map, Texas Park Road 1 is split up into PR 1A, PR 1B, PR 1C, PR 1D, and PR 1E, and is signed as so. I plan to create this article in the near future, and I would like for all the shields to be available. As I am unfamiliar with creating shields, I am requesting that someone experienced with it do this. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the latest notability proposal to feature highways. -- Rs chen 7754 23:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know that I started a GAR at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Delaware Route 17/1. -- ELEKHH T 22:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Are there demonstrable omissions in the historic timeline of the roadway? If there are, we have content that needs to be added for broad coverage. M-67 is essentially unchanged from its state when the signs went up in 1919. When US 41 was realigned, M-67 was extended slightly to continue to connect to another state highway on its southern end. As for the road itself, paving was completed at a later date, but otherwise the M-67 you or I would drive today is the same as the M-67 of yesteryear. As for DE 17, it's my understanding that Dough4872 doesn't have access to maps for every year published, or that some past years didn't have a new map. That means he may have gaps in coverage in the articles because he has gaps in the research. That situation should be corrected either way.
DelDOT is the official source for information on the the state highway system in Delaware as MDOT is the same for Michigan. That says something. I will assert broad coverage in terms of the historical timeline when I have official maps in my possession, either scanned or on paper, forming an archive from 1919 until 2012 with only a few gaps in the early years. When I worked on the US 41 article, I could pinpoint the opening of the Marquette Bypass to 1963 through those maps. Since then, I've found a newspaper article that pinpoints it to November 21, 1963. I've changed the citation over to get the more exact date, not because the MSHD maps from 1963 and 1964 are faulty nor because it makes the article any less broad in coverage. Imzadi 1979 → 15:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Now that the GAR has closed as a Keep, what are we going to do to ensure this is less likely to happen in the future? We should make a list of things that we learned during the GAR and things that need improvement in general. Feel free to add to the list. – Fredddie ™ 04:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
One of the complaints at the latest GAR was the lack of non-DOT sources. To help address this problem, I would like to propose converting the Resource pages into a full-fledged department. The main difference (besides the wording) would be the addition of a requests page where editors could request either a specific article for those with database access, or just a check for secondary sources in general. To prevent overloading the department, we would have request limits similar to the shield and map departments, and disallow requests for sources for Stub-Class articles (because you can write a RD and get a jct list to bring it to Start!) Thoughts? -- Rs chen 7754 07:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Article alerts is being annoyingly slow again, but we have another AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delaware Route 17. -- Rs chen 7754 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
For years, we've sorted the individual route categories on Commons with the same sortkeys that we use for the articles here on enwiki, grouping the members of the categories by the hundreds digit of their number. Apparently one user has a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is challenging the long-time status quo. See my Commons talk page. (Posting here since this is an issue of national scope.) – TMF ( talk) 12:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
All FA and A-class articles now have KMLs. There are 310 GAs remaining without KMLs. Thanks to those who are adding them, and if a GA that you wrote does not have one, please consider adding it.
Also, I will be checking for a KML on all USRD GAs that I review; other reviewers are starting to do the same, too, so please make sure you have one before you go to GAN. -- Rs chen 7754 20:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The main WP:USRD page has gotten extremely long; I'm concerned about new users being overwhelmed with information. I've noticed that WP:MILHIST has a more compact design despite their project complexity. Thoughts? -- Rs chen 7754 08:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
So far, I have created a sandbox for how I'd change the main USRD page. Doing the main page inspired me to make a new assessment page. – Fredddie ™ 23:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I just did a redesign of the Canada Roads Project main page over the past two days in the image of MILHIST. Not sure if it would be of any help for doing likewise yourselves, but at the least it may provide some ideas or inspiration. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposed process: Any user may request a B-Class review for a particular article, whether to promote an article to B-Class or to demote an article from B-Class. It is highly frowned upon for a user to promote their own article to B-Class because this assessment boundary is the first to garner feedback from another user.
Feedback and other ideas welcome. V C 00:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Some comments:
Most of this should be common sense, but the events that have transpired over the last few weeks have proven that some editors are sorely lacking in that department. It's sad that things have come to this point. I don't have an issue with anything discussed above, save for point five and a few comments about what B-Class should be.
The WP:1.0 team's "nutshell" description of the B-Class criteria is "The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards." I've always interpreted this to mean that the article is near GA-quality, but has issues (such as sub-par sources or an infobox without a map) that need to be addressed before the articles can be considered for GA. So, while I consider B-Class to be a small notch below GA and a launching point toward GA, I don't see it as a class that should be exclusively holding GA-quality articles that no one's bothered to nominate. That would effectively put near-GAs with very minor issues in C-Class, and that would really garble the assessment scale.
To somewhat echo the comments above, I'm opposed to requiring maps for B-Class articles but supportive of requiring them for potential GAs. I've strongly suggested the latter for the better part of two years, and no one in their right mind should be nominating articles for GA that don't have maps (and in this day and age, a KML). I support requiring KMLs for B-Class articles, but oppose demoting them if that's the only issue the article has, inside or outside a grace period. KMLs take 5-10 minutes to make on average, and getting one made can be as simple as prodding whoever is interested in making them for that state. – TMF ( talk) 02:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't really like this proposal in general. I think if we implement this, we are risking inflating the importance of B-Class to the point that it overlaps GA. To me, B has always been the top rank of the "lower half" articles. It is the stopping-off point before you get into the serious article vetting levels. If we implement this, it feels as though we are basically creating a class redundant to GA—that is what GA is, right, asking someone else to review an article, which they do by ticking off all the boxes on a checklist? I think our existing informal standard of "big three sections reasonably complete and no glaring article issues" is quite enough to get the job done. That it is frowned upon to take assessment upon yourself shouldn't really need to be codified since it's pretty much a cultural norm that we have at all assessment levels (I can't speak for others, but even going stub to start is enough for me to have someone double-check that it does indeed qualify to be bumped up). — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't see a huge fundamental difference between these two proposals (with the modifications mentioned above). VC's does have the additional requirements on the lead, grammar, and KML, but I'm not really seeing anything else. -- Rs chen 7754 09:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
B-Class criteria
| ||
---|---|---|
|
How in the world do I put this in a junction list? (Aren't you folks glad you don't edit Oklahoma?) :) — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I have been thinking, that I would like to create a page on a list of traffic signs in the US. I know there is one for worldwide, at Traffic sign, but it looks incomplete. I would like there to be a gallery of each type of sign found in the US, so readers could have an easy way of looking them up, based from this: [5] and [6]. Perhaps we can start a List of traffic signs in the United States or something close to that. Tinton5 ( talk) 18:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the point of these categories, especially when they lead to edits implying that an Interstate Highway built in the 1960s was "open" in 1908. – TMF ( talk) 02:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I looked through Wikipedia:Overcategorization and we surely have a case to mass-CfD these categories of highways based on opening, constructed, or designated years. These categories are based on non-defining characteristics, arbitrary inclusion criteria, trivial characteristics or intersections, and subjective inclusion criteria. Is overcategorization a sufficient policy basis? V C 17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Getting back to the topic at hand, to respond to the comments about bridges: The completion dates of bridges are less subjective and usually better documented than those of roads, so I think bridge (or tunnel) year categories would better withstand scrutiny than road year categories. V C 14:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see this discussion on the Help Desk, during which it was recommended that I come here. It regards my creation of a Capital Beltway sign image, and my uncertainty as to how it may be used. I want to do more of these, but I'm not sure how to determine if is worthwhile or even necessary. Thank you. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 16:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the difference between a concurrency and an overlap? MikeM2011 ( talk) 19:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I have converted Lewis and Clark Highway to a dab page that may need to be cleaned up. If this can be converted to an article please feel free to do so. – Allen4 names ( IPv6 contributions) 05:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Map of USRD rel WW alt 4.svg is throwing an error, since it is one of your project files, you might want to fix that. No source and no author are indicated, but that automatically sets the no-author cleanup category, and I think a bot tags sourceless images as well. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 03:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Now that I'm through with ranting for the moment...I just came back from Anchorage. I've been hobbling around on a badly bruised ankle for the past four days, so I couldn't cover as much ground as I wished. I did, however, snap a number of photos of Minnesota Drive and the Seward Highway. I hope that I can find/make some time to upload them soon. RadioKAOS ( talk) 23:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
If an article has a road junction list/exit list that is in table format, what template can be placed on the page alerting users to the fact that it needs to be templated (Jct, Jctint, GAint, etc.)? Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 03:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
|needs-jctint=
for the banner on the talk page for tracking purposes, similar to |needs-map=
and |needs-kml=
.
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to take the USRD-specific banners, {{
Mileposts}}
and the wrong direction template, for instance, and remove the visuals. Then we could use the templates as a shorthand for putting articles into tracking categories. –
Fredddie
™ 23:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
So anyway, we now have needs-jctint= on the USRD banner, which takes yes, no, or NA. We have over 10,800 USRD articles now. With AWB runs and some set logic I got the number down to just under 3600. Unfortunately, that means that we're gonna have to do some work. I encourage all active members of USRD to partake in the work; the sooner we can get this done, the closer we are to reaching one of our goals for 2012. See the goals banner for the appropriate categories.
All FA/A/GA articles have been tagged; there are 70 that we need to convert to templates before the end of the year. -- Rs chen 7754 09:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
As it can be seen here, here, and here, there is something wrong with Template:Jcttop. As you can see, for some reason, setting the nocty parameter to yes and the location to none now adds a "The entire highway is located in none." banner above the junction table. This needs to be fixed, as it is currently causing problems at a GAN review, and will likely cause more issues in the near future. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 00:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
|hatnote=off
. –
Fredddie
™ 02:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that our coverage of state highways made up of multiple disjoint segments is inconsistent. In most cases, the segments are covered in one article, such as New Jersey Route 167 or Pennsylvania Route 29. But in other cases, we have multiple articles. For instance, we have Pennsylvania Route 97 (Adams County) and Pennsylvania Route 97 (Erie County), with Pennsylvania Route 97 serving as a dab page. Also, we have a unique way of covering Missouri Route 110, with the original incarnation covered at the Missouri Route 110 title and the new version covered at Chicago–Kansas City Expressway. I feel we need to be consistent in covering these types of situations. Should we lump all the segments into one article or should we cover them separately. Should we only combine them when related and split them when unrelated? Should we have dab pages when there are multiple segments covered separately? Dough 48 72 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I added a major intersections section to the Georgia State Route 368 article. Normally, I have no problem with this, but SR 368 ends at a state line, so I don't understand how to do this. Could someone correct this section, and let me know what I did wrong? Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm reanalyzing my mc trip and find that for many roads/hiwys there are no indications of their mountain passes in lots of the road wiki pages (e.g. CA-299, UT-12...).
For UT-12 between Torrey and Boulder there is a distinct and high mtn pass with a distinct name I forgot. Also for 299 between Eureka and Willow Creek, there are two major elevations I don't find any name here. But I know there was a traffic shield with the name of at least one of the mtn. passes.
Unfortunately, also on Google Maps and Google Earth there is rarely an indication of the mtn pass names.
Since I was a tourist from Europe I have no idea of these names, but still want to know.
I appreciate if you could provide the names of major mtn passes of the (scenic) roads/hiwys.
Lorenz, Zurich, Switzerland
178.83.26.106 ( talk) 09:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, hold on. Since when should this be in junction lists? I downright oppose that. It should only be in route descriptions and maybe a lead if notable enough. (Clearly I misread something.) Mitch32( Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 12:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I have been working on an article for U.S. Route 90 in Florida since late-July 2012. Once I finish it, does that mean that Beach Boulevard (Jacksonville, Florida) will be merged into the article? ----DanTD 16:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I know we've had this discussion in the past, but we need to set a policy regarding old exit numbers in exit lists. The main concern is how long should we include the old exit numbers. Should we include them only in the transitional period, until 10 years after, or forever? We should come to a consensus on what it should be and possibly add it to MOS:RJL. Dough 48 72 23:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
River does not span the location version
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
River spans the location version
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ends with river version
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
}}
|
Note: I added these to facilitate discussion. – Fredddie ™ 22:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute in how the Lincoln Tunnel crossing should be handled in the New Jersey Route 495 exit list. My version uses the standard jctbridge with the river spanning the county and location columns and the state line continuation shown in a separate row but Djflem keeps reverting it to look like it currently does. Which version is better? Dough 48 72 18:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Dough 4872's interest in destabilizing a consensus which he helped to establish is perplexing. Since Sept 22 2006 when municipality location was introduced into the exit list New York City/County have been not included in it. This is because NJ495 does not travel through or have any exits in New York, and including in that column would imply that it did. NJ495 ends in the tunnel at the mid-point of the river at the border established in 1834 (by compact between the states ratified by Congress). Having the river span the location would imply that that the river is not located within the places it is at that point, namely in Weehawken and Manhattan. For the purposes of an article about highway designation exclusively located in one state (NJ in this case), only the portion that is relevent to the state need be notated. Using the current format of destination/note, a simple correction can be made by shifting the NY495 info to the note column to the effect: road continues as NY495 at state line at river midpoint in tunnel. Djflem ( talk) 21:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, M-553 failed FAC today, our first FAC that did not pass in several years. The main issue was that there was not enough support; it needed more independent review. While this largely is not our fault, does anyone have any ideas as to how we can prevent this from happening again? -- Rs chen 7754 20:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure we could really do anything to stop this. I was hesitant to support because I don't want one of our FACs to devolve into USRD-bashing because we were voting as a bloc, and I don't know the MOS or FAC standards well enough to make a legitimate case for a support other than "It passed ACR so it's good enough for me".— Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Just letting you know that we have five ACRs open that need reviews. I plan on adding a sixth once one of my GANs goes through, so the backlog is only going to grow. If you could take some time to review them, that would be amazing. -- Rs chen 7754 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
How often is the Assessment log updated? In particular, where can I see an assessment log for the state of Georgia? Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 22:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 60 in Oklahoma/GA1. I would like a second opinion on whether certain features need to be referenced in the route description. Dough 48 72 16:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Having a problem with GIS data and the creation of KML files for routes, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Maps_task_force/Tutorial#Creating_KMLs_with_GIS_data — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 22:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I've created a new page at the above link to put down suggestions for TFA and coordinate nominations for WP:TFAR. -- Rs chen 7754 05:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
Jctint}}
suite of templates have been updated to add purple for ETC exits and yellow for HOV exits. –
Fredddie
™ 17:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)This came up from an IRC discussion about Exit 352 on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the fact that it is an EZ-Pass only interchange. What I thought of was that we should make a lighter shade of purple (i.e. lavender) to signify exits on a junction list for electronic controlled access. Ones that come to mind include the PA Turnpike (Exits 320, 340, 352), the Atlantic City Expressway (exit 17), IL toll roads, etc. I'll leave the floor open, curious to if the project wants to signify it. I personally don't think the "Partial access interchange" fairly covers this type of access. Mitch32( Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 00:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Rschen brings up a valid point about HOV-/HOT-only exits, and there are tolled exits in other states where being assessed a toll on the ramp is a notable exception. (On I-355 in IL, some ramps assess a toll on exit in addition to the tolls assessed on the mainline toll barriers, but unlike the ticket systems used in IN or OH, tolls aren't assessed on all exits.)
So what I'm thinking is using the lavender for toll-specific exceptions: ETC-only exits, or exits where a toll is specifically assessed to use that ramp to leave the freeway. {{
legendRJL}} would be updated to use a |ETC=yes
or |toll=y
to display the legend for the color. HOV-/HOT-only items could use another color shade (yellow and blue are the only choices left of the basic rainbow) with a |hov=y
option to display that addition to the key. This way these new additions only appear in the key where appropriate (Michigan doesn't have ETC nor HOV/HOT situations).
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on {{
LegendRJL/sandbox}}
. A problem I'm finding is that the light purple colors I proposed are too close to the reddish color used for incomplete movements. If we were to go much darker, we would have to make the row text white to be WP:COLOR compliant. –
Fredddie
™ 15:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Can we get back to the point? We have three options on the table: Add/don't add an ETC Color, Change the colors for Incomplete access and what color to make the ETC one. My thought is just adopt a color that we can agree on that is a lighter shade of purple and doesn't interfere with the eyes. Mitch32( Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 23:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
Jctbridge}}
uses {{
Jctint/core}}
just like all the other {{
Jctint}}
-family templates, this will work right away. –
Fredddie
™ 14:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC){{
Jctint/core/sandbox}}
can be copied to {{
Jctint/core}}
. After that's done, {{
Jctint/type}}
should be semi-protected per
WP:HRT. –
Fredddie
™ 15:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Is there a reliable source for a list of all of the current state highways in the state of Georgia? I have noticed that some of the state route articles don't currently exist, and I want to eliminate the red links. Thanks! Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 01:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Just another reminder that our IRC chat channel is always open, and there's people in it frequently (the best times are afternoons and evenings US time). I'll be inviting the newer users on their talk pages, but anyone is welcome! -- Rs chen 7754 07:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Overall FAC pass rate: 69.64%
Placement of A-Class articles: 61.05% pass their first FAC
Success rate of ACR: 81.69% pass their first FAC
Note: the UK Roads WikiProject is not included in the above statistics, and list articles are not included either. Last updated: sometime in 2015 |
Thanks to everyone who's been helping out at ACR! We still have quite a backlog, with 7 ACRs open, and up to 5 potential nominees coming shortly. -- Rs chen 7754 08:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not at all proposing we add an A-Class List assessment like WP:MILHIST has, but do you think it would be a good idea to take any potential FLC-bound lists through ACR before going to FLC? – Fredddie ™ 03:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Many of us are aware of the chaotic events that have been happening over the last few weeks on Wikipedia. Those of us in the IRC channel are monitoring those events, and I am participating in many of the discussions, but as far as we know, this will not affect the roads projects in general. Ever since 2008, we have kept the drama far from our doorsteps, with only a few minor incidents here and there. We have enough administrators to deal with the project's needs, and a few editors who would probably pass RFA if we need more, so we don't need to worry about administrators leaving en masse. Please shoot me an email if you have any questions or concerns. -- Rs chen 7754 04:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
A user insists on adding a nonstandard section to the I-96 article called "I-96 Sniper". Your comments would be appreciated. -- Rs chen 7754 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Trying to restart the A-List discussion here since it got archived...
Why don't we adopt the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, since FLC is the end goal of an A-List? -- Rs chen 7754 07:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been looking at the Georgia County Maps, and I have come across some routes on them that are not on the List of numbered highways in Georgia (U.S. state) page. There are the normal alternate, business, bypass, connector, loop, and spur routes, however, there are also some state routes that have "CW", "DU", "EA", "LO", "SE", "SO", "TA", and "WE" suffixes on them. Can someone tell me what these road abbreviations are? Also, the "List" page above only has the routes numbered 1-388, some 400-series routes, and a few 500-series routes. On the GDOT maps, there are routes in the 700-, 800-, 900-, 1000-, 1100-, and 1200-series. What is up with that? Since the GDOT doesn't have a route log, this is very confusing. There is also confusion over roads listed as either future or future alignments. Some are broken into as many as 5+ segments; some are less than a mile long. Thank you for your help. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 08:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This is the monthly reminder that we need reviewers at ACR! We're at 7 articles now, and more are definitely on the way! -- Rs chen 7754 03:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
So I and an anonymous poster have been posting newly-posted exit numbers on the exit list on Ohio State Route 2. I have been putting "citation needed" templates next to each of them since there isn't really a direct source yet, but it's starting to look silly (I didn't just put "cn" in the column header because I-90's exit numbers where SR-2 runs with it are also listed). It's been noted with a RS that Ohio has started to do this ( Exit numbers in the United States#Other highways, although the source is inaccessible to the general public now) and I even just found an internal ODOT source via a Google search which reaffirms that and even tells how to calculate exit numbers for this particular posting activity ( Project 113004 Addendum: Q/A 25, 5/27/11), but I haven't found an ODOT document which lists specific numbers, and I don't anticipate one anytime soon since they even overtly identify that their Interstate exit guide is no longer being updated. Are we really going to have to wait for the first edition of the Ohio Transportation Map with these identified, assuming that they ever are, to remove the "cn"? If I understand WP:RS and WP:SYNTH, unfortunately I don't know of any way to be able to list them until then. Mapsax ( talk) 13:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Collapsing. Please do not WP:BITE the newcomers. Unfortunately, we're limited to the DOT per our reliable source policy, but further discussion on the actual issues at hand is welcome, not this tangential stuff on who wrote the longest comment (a contest I clearly won a section above). -- Rs chen 7754 10:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC) |
---|
This weekend, I started a discussion on VC's talk page to get his input on the GeoTRAQS application, because the user interface appears to have changed since he used it earlier this year, and which resulted in the Tutorial he wrote on the subject. After a quick look, VC confirmed this suspicion, making this tool of questionable use. Yesterday, after spending some time in this application, I discovered a drawing tool, which allows the user to draw out the route using straight-line vectors (requiring a lot of clicking to account for curves, needless to say), but which then spit back milage down to 1/100 of a mile. I played with the tool quite a bit, and got it to work consistently, but then noticed that the mile points it returned appear to be quite long compared to other data, such as the archived GDOT 444 report, or even when compared to Google Map measurements. To put the tool to a test, I did the following: I measured these 4 different distances:
The reason why I chose those distances is that they all came out to be very close to even mile measurements in my car, which is one of these 4 measuring methods:
Based on these readings, as unscientific as they are, I don't know that GeoTRAQS can be relied upon for Georgia mile points. Given that statement, I am therefore wondering whether we are in a position to have to rely on Google Maps as the only tool that will provide us with at least a decent approximation of distances between intersections. The GDOT 444 report was last updated on 2002, and there have been numerous changes in routes since that time, making that source also less than optimal. Thoughts? Thank you! Concertmusic ( talk) 14:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I plan to comment here sometime today (it's already going to be a crazy day) but my initial impression is that this doesn't strike me as TLDR. -- Rs chen 7754 17:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
|
A lot of us will be hanging out on IRC tomorrow night as the election results come in and you're welcome to sign in! For more information on connecting, see WP:HWY/IRC. Warning: it might get a bit crazy. :) -- Rs chen 7754 19:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I just realized that I have been adding way too many intersections into the Georgia State Route articles, at least when based on the standard for that section found on this page. Having said that, would someone be able to explain to me the reasoning behind the 10 or fewer intersections, especially on state routes?
For anyone who has driven any state routes, especially ones not in urban areas, any intersection with another state route is a significant event. In addition, it is often at these intersections that a route's direction may change, a concurrency starts, or that the route will intersect a community worth bringing to the attention of the reader. One could argue that all of these intersections could be mentioned in the Route Description, but descriptive text is harder to digest than a good listing of intersections in the Infobox.
In other words, I am arguing that ALL intersections with any route of equal or higher status should be listed in the Infobox. Therefore, on a Georgia State Route, all intersections with other state routes, US highways, and Interstates should be listed, IMHO.
Comments? Thank you! Concertmusic ( talk) 17:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
May 13, 2012, will mark the centennial since the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System was created. That article is at WP:HWY/ACR, but we've never had an article on a whole highway system go up that far on the scale, so I'm inviting project members to participate in the ACR to make suggestions in terms of content and organization before we do the usual review process to look at prose, sources/sourcing, images and the like. My personal goal is to take the article to WP:FAC early next year so that it can run as WP:TFA on the anniversary. Imzadi 1979 → 09:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I've had people make requests for me to do AWB jobs as one of the few USRD editors who has access to the tool and knows how to use it. I've started a new requests page at User:Rschen7754/AWB. -- Rs chen 7754 23:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I was just on the NDOR log book and all the highways in Nebraska are listed as "State Highways". Therefore, I personally think all of them should be renamed from Nebraska Highway X to Nebraska State Highway X. Also, Connecting Links and Spurs are listed as State Connecting Links and State Spurs, respectively. It seem to me they should all be renamed. DandyDan2007 ( talk) 23:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, any comments? -- Rs chen 7754 23:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I have written this guide to help new reviewers, and new editors who want to bring their articles to ACR. Let me know if you have anything to add! -- Rs chen 7754 09:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The I-49 designation is going live in Missouri on December 12. I have just created Interstate 49 in Missouri, although it still needs some work (mainly a route description). If someone has some time, Interstate 49 in Louisiana will need to be created, and then Interstate 49 cleaned up to more closely resemble a main article. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
It's that time of the year where we do the newsletter! If you want to write a super cool story, or you want to share what's going on in your state, feel free to do so! Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Newsroom is the place. Please submit stuff within the next week. Thanks! -- Rs chen 7754 08:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I want to throw it out there. For scenic highway articles, I'd like to propose dropping the requirement (tacit or otherwise) that it have an infobox if there is, or could be, a decent lead image. Let me be clear, I am not proposing banning them altogether on scenic highways. To do this, I would also propose the following guidelines: 1) The image would be 300 pixels wide (the width of a standard infobox), 2) Portrait orientation would be preferred (will look bigger), 3) No SVG shield graphics or April Fool's Day nominees, and 4) Bonus points for recognized works ( Commons:QI or WP:FP). – Fredddie ™ 08:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
There are many highways whose inventory directions are different from their signed directions. That is, a route may run northwest–southeast on a map, and be inventoried from south to north in the state highway department log books, but is signed east–west. I was wondering (1) whether it is more prudent to produce road junction lists and route descriptions in the inventory direction or the signed direction—we typically write those article sections south to north and west to east—for cases where inventory and signage conflict; and (2) how to reference signage directions, which is necessary for upper class articles if we state something like "Route X is signed east–west." V C 04:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
So... any suggestions? -- Rs chen 7754 06:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I am a new editor to the project (but not to Wikipedia). I have some time but I'm not exactly sure what work is needed. Still trying to learn. →
Michael J
Ⓣ
Ⓒ
Ⓜ 23:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
USRD Announcements}}
has a lot of backlog links in the right column. –
Fredddie
™ 15:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
So if I'm hearing everybody right, our two biggest goals for 2013 should be:
Then once they're here, and get their feet wet, we urge them to:
The first three are meta-goals to get us more help and where we need it. Obviously, the rest of us can do the bottom two :) – Fredddie ™ 15:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree about the first three goals not being actionable, but I understand the sentiment. After all, it is easier to point to X number of new Good Articles or Y percent improvement in wikiwork statistics than to point out infrastructure improvements or quantify how many new, productive editors the project has gained. I think goals 1 and 3 are definitely actionable, while goal 2 will take a little longer to crack.
As with any set of infrastructure improvements, we can look to other projects that have done it and done it well. V C 19:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
So... any more thoughts? -- Rschen7754 public ( talk) 15:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a quantifiable goal. Get the USRD relative WikiWork down to 4.400. With roughly 11,000 articles, we would need to improve by roughly 1600 classes to reach it. – Fredddie ™ 01:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
In conjunction with that, another idea might be to have 25 states (i.e. half) destubbed by December 31, 2013. We currently have 11 (13 if you count DC and Guam), with a fair number of states within striking distance (there are two states with 1 stub, two with 2 stubs, and quite a few more with less than 10). Not terribly out of reach, and progress on this would be progress on the wikiwork. This would give people who like stub drives a thing to do, and people that don't like them could go do regular wikiwork stuff. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm start a page to help with coordination of the tasks that we need to keep the project running, as we continue to grow in infrastructure and editors. So far it's at User:Rschen7754/Coordination. I've added what I'm aware of, and this is basically the status quo, just written down. Feel free to add new tasks or add yourself to any tasks; I'm sure that stuff got missed. On the talk page we can post about wikibreaks or anything like that. Comments? Suggestions? -- Rs chen 7754 06:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I suddenly discovered a big goof regarding the junction list for Interstate 40 in Oklahoma; All the I-40 Business Routes and Loops lead to redlinks to Michigan for whatever crazy reason. I thought this would be an easy problem to fix, but that turned out not to be true. What gives? --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 18:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
We need some suggestions for Selected Picture and Did you know? for Portal:U.S. Roads for next month. Dough 48 72 01:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It's been a few years since we've attempted a WikiCup. I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to participate. I am willing to coordinate it, but I'd like some input on what you'd like to get out of it. Here are a few ideas that I have:
If you have any ideas, please submit them below. – Fredddie ™ 05:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Have we ever had a FA during the past Cups? I...don't recall any. I admit that 10,000 points for a getting a FA in one of the bottom five states is a bit ridiculous, but it got your attention, didn't it? I do like Scott's points proposal, and I'll knock the top tier back to the top five and give half points instead of no points. Regarding DYK, would it be better to give points for 5x expansions only or give points for every DYK but scale them back? – Fredddie ™ 02:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the year 2013 on Wikipedia! This is just a reminder that our 2013 goals are now active, as listed on the project page.
As far as our 2012 goals:
Congratulations to everyone on their hard work!
Many of us have been away over the holidays, but we hope to get a new newsletter out soon. As always, you can join us on the IRC channel; see WP:HWY/IRC for details. -- Rs chen 7754 00:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. The following is a neutrally worded courtesy message:
Portal:Massachusetts has been nominated for Featured Portal status. The nomination page is Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Massachusetts.
As a WikiProject with a related sphere of interest, you are being notified of the proceedings, and invited to participate in them.
Yours, Sven Manguard Wha? 17:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Our presence on Commons is at commons:COM:USRD, and on Wikidata at d:WD:USRD. -- Rs chen 7754 05:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Since it needs to be discussed, and probably should be added to WP:USRD/STDS—what exactly should be in each highway category, e.g. Category:U.S. Route 60? I think everyone can agree that the main US-60 article should be present, and all of the US-60 in X state-detail articles. Historically, I believe child route articles, such as US-160 are included as well. Do we want to continue this or move all child routes to their own category (possibly a subcat of the parent route's category)? Should routes that overlap with the focus route be included in the category? What about designations for former alignments of the focus routes, or routes that were subsumed by the focus route? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Another thing we should probably be writing down while we're doing this—what should have categories for individual highways? Just U.S. and Interstate routes, and not state routes? If we decide to move the child route pages to new categories, perhaps we should suggest only doing so if there are multiple pages besides the main article (i.e. at least one S/D article or bannered route page has to exist). — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I take the opposite view, let's take U.S. Route 66. I have no doubt that category needs some pruning (as does everything associated with that article) but the former route IS what gives that route notability. If the category were limited to only active routes and sub-articles, the category would be, well, empty. I would also argue that at least for the former transcontinental arteries that have been decommissioned in the western states thanks to the interstate highway system, (read most of the US highways that have a 0 as the final digit) former alignments ARE notable enough to merit being included in the category. I would also argue that significant stretches of former auto trails merit a category mention too. I'll grant you that some county route that used to be part of US 40 before a new alignment was built 1/2 mile to the north, yeah that's iffy. Dave ( talk) 17:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Yes Imzadi I know I owe you an article review. I'm working on it, I promise.
We now also have a page on Meta: m:USRD. This is more for outreach efforts and interwiki discussion rather than anything else, like most of the other pages on Meta. -- Rs chen 7754 07:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
As I have driven through parts of Georgia, I have noticed signs for upcoming intersections. These are the kind with the name of the upcoming road listed underneath. Some of them say "CR&XXX". Now, does Georgia actually have county routes? If so, can they be added to Wikipedia at all? I haven't done any search on Google -- or elsewhere -- for them. I just wondered if any of you had any information on them. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 00:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I am making a change to {{
Infobox road/shieldmain/USA/CR}}
that will likely break a few instances of county road shields in Florida. Right now it's a mishmash of code caused by the new naming scheme we rolled out in the last year and this will vastly simplify things. Anyone with the filemover right on Commons is encouraged to help out. Shields will need to be at "<county> County <number>.svg". –
Fredddie
™ 06:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds these three page moves to be a bit bizarre? The purpose of the pages was clear before the rename; now, the title could easily lead people to think that it's cruft. – TMF ( talk) 15:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
In the particular case of these three pages, these look to be more like disambiguation pages than set index lists. The issue may be that Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title was moved to that name to address pages like List of highways numbered 2 -- where some, but not all of the entries might be ambiguous with "Route 2", and some but not all of the entries might be ambiguous with "Highway 2", etc. Thus the list is heterogeneous with regards to disambiguation, but they all share the common property of having "2" as an identifying number. Thus that sort of page is clearly a set index rather than a disambiguation page. However, where a road name is ambiguous, it seems that could be a disambiguation page. However, by analogy with set index usage for ships and mountains {{ shipindex}} and {{ mountain index}}, the set index classification is also used for pages that address ambiguous uses. So it is a mixed bag and previously the subject of extensive discussion. older ≠ wiser 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Now that we have a USRD at Commons, do you think it would be a good idea to migrate our shields and maps task forces to Commons? – Fredddie ™ 03:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a claim made at U.S. Route 20 that U.S. Routes don't exist within national parks, and thus any such route that crosses such a park is considered to be disjointed. Does anyone have any reliable sources which state this to be true? I've driven any number of U.S. Routes through any number of national parks, and never noticed that the Route stopped existing, nor have I ever heard this as a policy. For example, U.S. Route 441 is the main north-south route through the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and as far as I can remember, there's no indication it stops at the park boundaries. Likewise, U.S. Route 89 crosses several national parks. Can someone verify whether or not the claim in the U.S. 20 article is valid? -- Jayron 32 21:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
As you may know, Wikidata today launched phase 1 (the interwiki links) on the Hebrew and Italian Wikipedias: http://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/01/30/wikidata-coming-to-the-next-two-wikipedias/. The important news is that it will be launching on the English Wikipedia on February 11th. That is also the same day that Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada–Wendover, Utah) will be TFA, by the way. Before then we ideally want to finish up phase 1 (descriptions, finishing any missing items, etc.) On that day, hopefully enwp won't spiral out of control with people removing interwiki links before they're input into Wikidata; we should be good to go however since over 90% of our items are created and set up already. I'm not sure if we should be removing interwikis from our articles en masse after February 11th yet.
Ideally, we want to finish phase 1 because the first parts of phase 2 will be deploying on February 4th. This is where Wikidata really begins for us. On that day, two types of fields will be added to items: links to media on Commons, and links to other items. This will allow us to have a link to a highway's map and shield on Commons, as well as form hierarchical relationships (say, auxiliary routes). I'm hoping to start a discussion to get this all figured out on Wikidata sometime soon, before the chaos erupts February 4th. These fields will not be deployed onto Wikipedia for a few weeks, so we'll have a bit of time to figure it all out. -- Rs chen 7754 20:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Highway 2 Bridge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 2 Bridge until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
[7] is an example item with three statements. I would suggest holding off on adding these to articles en masse for a few days, since you risk having to redo them should something change. Besides, we still have Phase 1 to finish :) I'll be proposing a few more statements as well over the next few days. -- Rs chen 7754 20:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi...I am an inactive member here, hoping to change that but never seeming to find the time. I do a lot with the Editor Retention Project, and we have started an editor recognition program. I am just gonna post the ad, and you all can do what you would like with it. Hope some of you would contribute a nomination or two! Gtwfan52 ( talk) 05:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you know an under-appreciated editor that should be recognized? | |
Hi! The folks over at WER-Editor of the Week are looking for some help! We need nominations for "Editor of the Week". The ideal candidate is an editor who works hard, possibly doing behind-the-scenes kind of stuff, that just doesn't get recognized as much as they should. Although we have a preference for newer editors, any under recognized editor is eligible. So please make a note of this, and give us your nomination at: WP:EotW/N. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 05:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC) |
Hi! Would someone mind giving I-96 a review at ACR? It's been sitting for months with no activity. Remember it's also worth 15 points at the USRD Cup! -- Rs chen 7754 08:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to put out there I am in the process of adding the category Roads designated in XXXX (year) on several highway pages, to populate the categories. If anyone is willing to help, that would be great. Tinton5 ( talk) 01:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Should we CfD the categories? – TC N7 JM 18:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this is interesting, but here's a link... -- Rs chen 7754 22:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Along those same lines, I mentioned in IRC the other night about an idea to speed up the backlog at MTF/R. Basically, it would apply the MTF style to OpenStreetMap so we could simply export maps for our use. I have no idea how to go forward from this, but maybe by putting it in writing something will come of it. – Fredddie ™ 23:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if it matters much, but is there a styling guide to whether the abbreviated road name should be bolded? ( Interstate 68 is not, but Interstate 355) is...) It seems to be that the majority are bold, but there are many, including a number of the interstate articles, which do not bold the "I-.." Thanks. " Pepper" @ 21:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, a week's gone by since the enwp launch and things are off to a good start. We're working to finish up Phase 1 on 14 more states, plus USH. Phase 2 has begun in earnest. So far we have 5 properties, and there is a massive bot run to add three of them (highway system, maintained by, owner) to all IH, USH, and state highway items. Alabama through Maine are going to run tonight, and the rest will run at some other date within the next week. I have a few more ideas for items that can be done with the limited data types that we have, but that will come at some point once we're caught up. -- Rs chen 7754 10:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
File:SawgrassExpressway-MainSign-July1992.jpg, which is claimed to be taken in 1992 by Formulanone ( talk · contribs), looks like a duplicate of this photo taken by Michael Summa in 1986. Dough 48 72 20:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The plot thickens: Jake from the AARoads Shield Gallery says the description there is in error; it is not the work of Michael Summa! He says he is not sure who the actual photographer is, and may well be Formulanone. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia:Help desk#Boilerplate prose copied from another article:
I'm looking for the specific policy or guideline about making boilerplate copies of prose from one article which repeat fundamental points about that article into tangentially-related articles (not daughter pages where a summary might be appropriate). This seems very simple, but I can't find a good reference. Thanks. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 20:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
End copy -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 01:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Chaswmsday#Ohio State Routes edits:
Please don't remove the NHS and AADT info, most every other road article that is at ~B or above has this info. So why would these not have this info. Detcin ( talk) 00:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
End copy -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 01:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Prior to editing, I researched the WP Help pages and asked a Help desk question since this question would seem widespread, and not specifically Roads-related.
I removed boilerplate prose from several Route articles specifically describing the rationale of the NHS, defining AADT and describing the responsibilities of Ohio DOT. I believe that the basic nature of WP calls for such details to exist within those specific articles, not in articles merely referencing other articles, unless there is a parent-child or general-specific relationship between the articles. I also believe that leaving the articles in this state is a dangerous invitation to massive Template:Sync problems if any of the underlying details would happen to change.
My edit summaries were of the form: "Removed boilerplate prose describing other WP articles, best left to those articles & avoiding future Template:Sync problems."
My edits were reverted by User:Detcin - in a couple of cases, twice.
Please weigh in. Thanks! -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 01:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's all that likely that the underlying details of what NHS is are likely to change all that much. Routes may be added and dropped from it, but what the system is will probably remain static, so I don't really see much of a sync issue. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I find it curious that, quoting @Imzadi1979, the mere thought that "a reader shipped off to another article may not come back to the subject article to continue reading" is severely onerous to that reader, who couldn't possibly go back a page in their browser, or open the new article in a separate tab, assuming that a casual reader of a road article is even remotely interested in the details of a linked article, which we must summarily describe in the first article. Yet, @Rschen7754 has repeatedly redirected readers of this thread to the locations of some of the original comments, collapsed them (incorrectly), both of which violate Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and is now entreating me to do so, as some sort of Sync problem, even though the former comment locations have been marked as redirected here. Unlike the reader of the road article, those editors who are interested enough to read this thread in all likelihood would want to read the thread from the beginning. So no. No collapse. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 06:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me state how I got here. Having driven these roads in real life, I have edited Ohio State Route 444 and Ohio State Route 844. While a cursory examination of @ Detcin's edits shows many useful contributions, these I felt were violations of Wikipedia's basic principles and fraught with danger: "National Highway System, a system of routes determined to be the most important for the nation's economy, mobility and defense." No comment for now. "The highway is maintained by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) like all other state routes in the state." Really, the state DOT maintains all state routes?? Who'd a thunk it?? Plus, irrelevant to the road article. "The department tracks the traffic volumes along all state highways as a part of its maintenance responsibilities using a metric called average annual daily traffic [sic] (AADT). This measurement is a calculation of the traffic level along a segment of roadway for any average day of the year." Yeah, half-sentences there (irony).
I found these so egregious in over-defining linked terms and assuring Template:Sync problems in the future that I convinced myself that @Detcin was responsible for this solely in his/her edits. That's why I went first to Help and Help Desk. I was certain that over-defining a linked term was an issue that had already long been dealt with by WP in general. It wasn't. When I found agreement in Help Desk, I set about boldly "correcting" @Detcin's road articles, edit-summarying them accordingly. If @Detcin objected, I could sway her/him with the over-defining and Sync arguments. Only to find...that this format was Standard Operating Procedure in the US Roads Project. Astounding!
As to some of the arguments, would it now be OK for me to, after the first reference to Interstate Highway System, mention the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways" and/or give a half or full or two sentence description of its transportation and defense rationale? These points may or may not be obvious to Americans, but likely wouldn't be to non-US readers. Should I further describe Wright-Patterson Air Force Base or Wright State University, which are linked w/i the OH SR 844 article? Or myriad and sundry other links within road articles? If not, why not? This definitely is not my first rodeo, so I expect I'll get "of course not, those cases are entirely different" comments, but I've found, unfortunately, that some editors will use any type of "pretzel logic" to justify their own WP:ILIKEITs, while denigrating similar counter-examples ("YOULIKEITs").
It's all kind of a matter of degree: summaries are valid if there is a parent-child article relationship. Sometimes, a little bit of explanatory text about a linked term is helpful. I've always rebelled against those editors who try to enforce hard-and-fast policy regulations on every situation. I see WP primarily as a work of art, with every situation and article having its own set of challenges. However, I believe that in these particular cases, re-describing these links w/i the Road articles has gone too far. True, NHS probably won't change, but unless the editors who claim that work at FHWA and/or can work a crystal ball, that isn't a given. Maybe AADT will be redefined with some better metric. Sure, ODOT currently maintains Ohio State Routes, but what about in the future? I can easily imagine a scenario where, to cut the state budget, Ohio pushes responsibility for traffic counts down to the counties, municipalities and/or townships in an unfunded mandate. They've certainly done that before. With some of these, you still might have to do some editing, but the verbose verbiage currently existing would make that all the more difficult.
The least objectionable of these is the definition of NHS. It truly adds about a half-sentence of prose, and if it had been the only example, I might have left it alone. And yet...wait for it... In OH SRs 444 & 844, we have "a system of routes determined to be the most important for the nation's economy, mobility and defense". In California State Route 52 we have "a network of roadways important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility". Seems like a small quibble, no? But which is it? How many road articles have the first version, how many the second? Is there a third version...or more? I've seen a bunch of road articles stating that a route is part of NHS and I've seen other articles stating that another route is not. Is the goal to include NHS verbiage in every single road article? Has that already been accomplished? From upthread: "we are bound by our sources; we have to go by what the sources [say]. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth." One of these versions misquotes and thus mischaracterizes how the US National Highway System defines itself. Is this an act of WP:Original research? Or an act of WP:Synthesis? Or was it simply a Template:Sync issue? One of these two versions is correct, at least currently. Which one? How many articles must now be corrected? And that, folks, is my point. Thanks for reading. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 09:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for opening a can of worms here by not looking into this question more deeply before making my comments at the Help Desk (copied above). I will of course defer to the experts on this WikiProject.-- ukexpat ( talk) 13:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: I thought we were having a civil conversation on my talk page, mostly about my past experiences with a few bullying editors on other projects and how I, at first, feared that heavy-handed tactics were going to be used in this discussion. Our conversations had alleviated my fears, but now there's an outside editor involved, carrying this discussion away from here, to her/his user page, at User talk:Dank#USRD comment, where I feel that you mischaracterized the intent of my comments, which I believe I explained were venting about those earlier experiences and my earlier fears, in somewhat of a " WP:A nice cup of tea and a sit down" fashion. If my venting made you think I was trying to make veiled comments about you, or this discussion, please be assured I absolutely was not. Again, just discourse. To wit:
I believe it's generally better practice to leave the definition of a linked term to that term's own article. Unlike the aforementioned bullies, that's certainly not an absolute ("generally" and "better", not "always" and "required"). IMO, if someone is interested enough, they'll visit the link. If they don't come back to the first page, so what? We can't dictate another reader's interests. My current browser will give me a thumbnail of ref's if I hover over them. Maybe in the future (or maybe it already happens in other browsers), WP will give a thumbnail of the "lead" when we hover over a link. So WP's implementation might obsolete the practice as it stands here.
In the specific case of NHS, again, IMO, there is a large distinction between "important roads" and "THE MOST important roads". Equivalent verbiage is totally unobjectionable. But a version that makes a claim not matching the source mischaracterizes the intent of the source and pretty much amounts to WP:Original research. Again, as to NHS, there is a mini-debate within this thread about whether "principal arterials" under "MAP-21" are now included (I believe they are, but that's a separate issue). Government agencies and human nature being what they are, it's likely that the NHS definition wouldn't change. But, it's at least possible that the FHWA could say that NHS roads are important, while the MAP-21 arterials merely connect to important roads. Again, probably not likely, but this is really all about a larger point, anyway. And that's all I intend to say on this subject. No hard feelings intended or taken. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 17:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: As mentioned in another section, I've asked the question about NHS principal arterials at Talk:National Highway System (United States)#Principal arterials under MAP-21.
Because National Highway System (United States) is an important attribute in U.S. Road articles, I'm wondering if that shouldn't also be indicated in an article's Infobox. I played around with populating Template:Infobox road's "System" parameter, but that would involve manual intervention for each article and the result, just below "Highway System", created IMO, a hinky-looking line break just after it.
Within Template:Infobox road/browselinks/USA (I had to edit), NHS exists, so it appears that a proper wikilink might possibly be generated. But I would have to seriously read up on my already limited understanding of template code to figure it out.
Does anyone else think this idea has merit and would know how to implement? Thanks. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 19:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|NHS=yes
on articles that are part of the NHS. –
Fredddie
™ 22:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It in my opinion has no place in the infobox due to the grand amount these could add up to in infobox length. The problem with adding more stuff to the infobox personally is that it clutters smaller articles, and just looks sloppy really. I also do tend to believe the NHS isn't really a good system to base the country on, but that's what they use. Primarily 1 or 2 sentences in the route description suffices. Mitch32( The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 14:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys. I was just working on some of the non-existent categories and came across Category:Temporary_jct_template_category. I've not looked at all of the members but eg U.S. Route 59 in Oklahoma has been in this "temporary" category for nearly 3 years! From that diff it looks like the category is set by a parameter buried deep in {{ jct}} so I figured it's not for me to meddle with it but I thought I would bring it to your attention. Le Deluge ( talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC) (edit - another relevant diff in Western Kentucky Parkway on 24 September 2011) Le Deluge ( talk) 01:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Some discussion regarding sources. -- Rs chen 7754 20:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 90 in Ohio#Lake and Ashtabula County Exits. I feel confident in my responses and actions ( WP:BOLD but not overbearing) but would like comments. Mapsax ( talk) 14:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking about converting portions of our most used templates (Infobox road, jct, jctint, USRD, etc) to Lua. I hope to be setting up a testing environment at [12] so that we're not making changes go live immediately. We may have to redo some of these templates entirely once Wikidata is fully deployed; however, I'm hoping to convert some of the more complicated parserfunctions to Lua so that they are less computationally expensive and reduce page loading time. -- Rs chen 7754 21:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I figure I should let everyone know, I'm trying to feel out how Lua works by converting {{ Routelist row}} to Lua. See Module:Routelist row (Lua code), User:Scott5114/SandboxT (template), User:Scott5114/SandboxU (usage). So far beltway/termini work, and row colors kinda work (decommissioned works but future doesn't yet). — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Important dates:
My thoughts are to do some sort of switch statement to allow data to come from Wikidata, but to have the possibility of a local override as a lot of stuff isn't on there yet.
As far as work on Wikidata goes, things have slowed down a bit as the bot is currently occupied, but we're still making progress. -- Rs chen 7754 21:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Check it out! -- Rs chen 7754 08:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing this in several other WikiProjects where I take active part. The idea got some publicity in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-25/WikiProject report, but nobody is talking about making ω more widely reported... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
One of your key editors, Rschen7754 (really great work, way beyond my current skill level), made these edits (march 22, "removed" section) to the talk pages of WP:San Francisco Bay Area articles, removing them from the SFBA task force and WP:California. I understand the reasoning given (and won't revert), that since other states' road articles are not also in the state projects, why should California roads be in the California project? My question is the reverse: why aren't other road articles in those other state projects? I can't find any hard and fast rules for avoiding overlap of WikiProjects. The best i can find, with a cursory search, is Wikipedia:WikiProject: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." (somewhat tangential); and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Identify the best scope: "Too much overlap: If the scope is too closely related to an existing project, then having separate projects is usually inefficient and counterproductive, because you wind up dividing the few interested editors across multiple projects. This approach maximizes administrative hassles and minimizes collaboration. However, there is no rule that prohibits two separate groups of editors from being interested in the same articles (my emphasis)." We do have other Wikiprojects whose content is almost, or completely, enclosed by the Cali project, such as the University of California (inactive), California State University (inactive) and Stanford projects, and I havent seen a clear pattern of no overlap with them. We also have such issues as whether the California project should somehow be automatically included in the US project, which of course includes some states but not others. I think ive made my concerns clear. Does anyone here know more about how such issues are resolved? i know its not a content issue, so we wont need to find references, etc, and any sort of edit war on this is rather silly. I would especially like to know if there are more guidelines for managing project overlap. i am a somewhat maniacal editor for the SFBA project (the project and the portal were fairly moribund until i came along), but i want to play well with others while doing so. After all, if every time someone takes an action (like a cdrom) using all the Cali project articles and automatically includes the cali road project articles, it really doesnt matter, does it? Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
So, I just recently used {{
welcome-roads}}
and decided to read over it for the first time, as normally I just drop the template and leave. I found a line that might need tweaking.
There is a line that reads "If you live in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide."
I propose changing it to "If your interest is in roads in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide."
or something similar, since you don't need to live in the United States to be interested in U.S. roads.
Let me know what you guys think. T C N7JM 16:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Done since there were no objections. Thanks for your input! T C N7JM 15:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to invite you to help organize the 2013 Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest in the United States. Last year, over 22,000 files were uploaded (90% by new Wikipedia users) to illustrate articles about historic places in the United States. We need all the help we can get, so if you're interested in organizing the contest, please add your username at this page. If you have any questions, please don't post them here - place a new message on User talk:Mono. Thanks, Mono 15:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I have been watching List of bannered U.S. Routes (on my watchlist) and have noticed that an IP user is adding lots of code and entries. However, the page is looking as if it is being vandalized. I would like to get this page corrected, but I think more experienced editors should take a look at it and deal with the user. Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 00:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I have audited all the USRD GAs from 2008 and earlier to check for serious issues like SPS use. The results are at User:Rschen7754/2008 USRD GA audit. In a week, I will start the delisting process for articles remaining on the list, but will try and spread out the delistings to give editors time to fix the affected articles. -- Rs chen 7754 02:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been informed that various "roadgeek" websites, like NYCRoads.com, AlpsRoads.net , and MichiganHighways.org, etc. are no longer considered reliable sources since they have not met the criteria for the exception to the SPS section of the verifiabilty policy.
Is there any exception to this policy, such as allowing pictures or maps from these sites?
I have also noticed that these sites are still used in dozens of articles as a reference source for various statements. Is there a reason why there are still some remaining reference sources from these sites?
Please explain if, how, and when all remaining reference sources from NYCRoads.com, AlpsRoads.net , and MichiganHighways.org would be removed.
If alternate source that provides duplicate referenced details in an article statement based on the original road geek site cannot be found, will the referenced details in specific article statements also be removed? Wondering55 ( talk) 19:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
There are proposed changes for the A-Class review for WP:HWY, to deal with situations where there are several opposes, and when the nominator has failed to respond to the comments. Your input is welcome at WT:HWY/ACR. -- Rs chen 7754 05:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I have observed that some categories mostly for interstate and U.S. Routes are disorganized. For example, some pages in Category:Interstate 95 are not in any particular order. They are somewhat scattered all over the place. Shouldn't Interstate 95 in Virginia be under the primary list? They include Interstate 95 in New York, Interstate 95 in New Hampshire, etc etc with the states in alphabetical order. Shouldn't all pages that start with Interstate 395 be under the "3"? Also, Category:Interstate 65 has two pages are under "A", which have no relevance to the two, them being Interstate 165 and Interstate 565. Thoughts on this matter? Category:U.S. Route 1 seems to be in decent shape. Tinton5 ( talk) 23:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
You're invited to help in drafting guidelines for U.S. highway items on Wikidata! The current draft guidelines are at d:WD:USRD/GL. Input is needed, so help today! - happy 5214 10:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been reformatting the List of bannered U.S. Routes page in my sandbox. I have resorted each section by location, and then by route type. I also added entries that weren't on the page. Most of those entries I got from the "Bannered routes of U.S. . . ." pages, the "U.S. Route . . ." pages, the "U.S. Route . . . in . . ." pages, or (as in the case of U.S. Route 87) Loops of U.S. Route 87 in Texas. Also, I used the 2013 Large Scale Rand McNally road atlas, Rand McNally's online mapping service, and Google Maps to find others that aren't on those Wikipedia pages. I listed some by how they are signed (for example, US 67B vice BUS US 67 in Arkansas). I want to make the pages on the actual list page, but I thought I should ask you guys first. Do you think there are any other changes I should make? Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 10:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Providing notice that I've recommended this article for demotion at ACR. -- Rs chen 7754 10:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Had a discussion with Rschen at User talk:Rschen7754#California State Route 52 et al concerning original research and ownership. Per Rschen's blanket refusal to consider either issue, I'm going to boldly edit California State Route 52. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 20:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at Missouri Route 350 to see if the recent edits are accurate or not? The editor says that is is slated to become a new US 350. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 20:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
For anyone familiar with California roads, the newly created page California Incline, says it is a road and bridge in the lead. Should it be reworded to say "road bridge" or something else? I am not 100% sure if the entire street is a bridge. Tinton5 ( talk) 23:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
If anyone can help in this CfD discussion please join in. While not restricted to the US, I'm sure someone here can provide some good guidance. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I know a lot of people have requested renames in the past on the English Wikipedia, but have not globally, or have not unified their accounts. If you have not done so, it may be a good idea to do so soon, before May 27 - otherwise it may be a huge mess to clean up aftewards. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions - I'm familiar enough with the process. -- Rs chen 7754 06:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, because Morriswa couldn't link it, I will. Mitch32( It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 00:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I would think that articles should mention maximum carrying capacity of a limited access highway. For example, at 50 mph, allowing 3 second interval and a 17 foot vehicle (arbitrary), the capacity for a single lane should be nearly 3,000 vehicles per hour. The "per hour" is important because when the editor specifies that the road carries 6,000 vehicles per hour during peak conditions, the reader might reasonably conclude that the traffic will slow to (say) 25 mph, roughly.
This should be modeled/outlined with a usable citation. Okay, this isn't a very good one: http://books.google.com/books?id=8O4Th52zjssC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=carrying+capacity+of+highways&source=bl&ots=O1gkiwnPT2&sig=hX0acaf58qSg1NOqrwKRFGJ72mA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W058UbvFJYuE9QSD24DAAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=carrying%20capacity%20of%20highways&f=false. It assumes a 1.8 second distance which seems short IMO. This one, at least, appears neutral, but is not really the ultimate available: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/29000/29200/29208/2001WZSnapshot_final_.pdf. The beauty of a real study, is it allows for correct sizing, including an average mix of larger vehicles, like trucks, and a 3 second delay between vehicles.
Unfortunately, for this project, most articles are aimed at mass transportation and are pov on road traffic, which renders them undesirable for a road article. But this is a simple calculation. "All" that needs to be done, is to find an online (for credibility) text which contains it. If I could have, I would have!
For a unlimited access (not a TP), the editor is forced to use engineers design specs or measured volume, if s/he can find them. No "mechanical" table-punching recourse as there would be for limited access roads. We would make that clear in the "outline." Student7 ( talk) 22:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Pennsylvania Route 51, 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 20:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Do we have anything anywhere that strongly urges against making more of them? I noticed this morning that they are being created en masse for Georgia, but they do not appear to be deployed as of yet. I guess my biggest problem with them is that the states that have this style of navbox (Georgia and Texas, specifically) have bigger problems than needing navboxes. – Fredddie ™ 11:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
By-county highway navboxes should die. -- Rs chen 7754 01:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Getting back on topic: The point about a link in the navbox to an article like List of state highways in Glasscock County, Texas is good; however, would not that be solved by removing such a link from the header of the navbox? The category point is good. The county article point is very good.
I admit, I am on the fence about these navboxen, so I am playing devil's advocate. It seems the consensus is pointing toward that we should deprecate these navboxen. However, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an appropriate way of supporting that. I want to see some more good reasons why these navboxen should be deprecated. I also want to see some supported examples of when similar navboxen are appropriate. V C 17:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
|counties=
parameter for that summary. Ditto a properly formatted junction list table that includes every county along the route of a specific highway.
Imzadi 1979
→ 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)So are we going to take any kind of action on these? A couple users are going around creating a bunch for Texas, and if we don't want them, we should probably act soon. T C N7JM 21:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
db-g7}}
at the top of every Georgia template that he created. But since I'm posting explicit instructions here, he won't understand what to do and we'll be forced TfD. –
Fredddie
™ 22:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there anyway that the Blue Ridge Parkway can be added to {{ Jct/doc/type/USA}}? Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 00:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Jct}}
. You'd actually have to type more with Jct. {{Jct|country=USA|Parkway|Blue Ridge}}
instead of [[Blue Ridge Parkway]]
. –
Fredddie
™ 01:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{jct|state=NC|Parkway|Blue Ridge}}
(or the "VA" version)? I know it would be more typing, but it would be formatted correctly.
Allen (Morriswa) (
talk) 01:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
jct}}
does not mean it is incorrectly formatted. It is fine as it is now.
T
C
N7JM 02:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
jct}}
template would format both the shield and link correctly for the articles that it could be used on.
Allen (Morriswa) (
talk) 12:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)I was in Washington, DC in September 2011, and I took some pictures of signs for "Interstate 395 Alternate" Here is one, and here is the other. Do any of you have any idea what that road is, any of its history, etc.? I was confused when I first saw it. Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 12:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
We've exported a concept from Australia again for the infobox. Now on named highways like the St. Joseph Valley Parkway or the Ohio Turnpike, the numerical highway designations that follow the named roadway can be notated. There are several benefits:
This is the second parameter we've added and partially implemented based on feedback from Australia. The other is |restrictions=
which has been used on
Brockway Mountain Drive and
Interstate 696 among others to note roads that have traffic restrictions. The |tourist=
parameter came from discussions with editors in New Zealand and has been used to mark major tourist routes that follow highways in the US and Canada.
Imzadi 1979
→ 23:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Going around in circles, so collapsing this. -- Rs chen 7754 03:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC) |
---|
There are lots of articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport#Roads that could be started (whether actual articles or just redirects) and incorporated into the Project. You guys are better at some of this type of thing than I am, so I am proposing (and asking nicely) that you help out. Thanks! Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 18:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Usually, when I do something that other USRD editors don't like, they get upset with me. Why didn't you say that I should have left those US 1 links red instead of making them redirect to the top of the "Bannered routes of U.S. Route 1" page (like I did)? Like I wrote to Imzadi, I plan to make the appropriate sections for some of the routes (some of the others are over my head). As I also told him, it is my opinion that all of the red links should be started as either redirects of full articles. By the way, what is defining criteria for a bannered route to be a full article (some do exist)? Maybe I could start some of them. Thank you. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 12:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
|
FWIW, all the newly created Alt US 1 redirects in CT have been re-targeted to U.S. Route 1A where there is some information already present. -- Polaron | Talk 05:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think now might be the time to act. We need to come up with a standard format for route lists—you know, those lists of all of the routes in the state, like List of Oklahoma numbered highways. Why? Because there is no reason that, with a standard, MOS-compliant format, the majority of them could not be Featured Lists, since for every state we at least have a source of length data, and most states have a history source now. With a standard format, you would just have to follow standards, build the list, send to FL, done.
Questions to discuss:
Let me know what you all think. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
No. 7 mentioned the Arizona list as what he'd like to see in a list. I agree that the state route portion of the list seems like a good starting point for a discussion on list formatting. What do other people think of the Arizona list? What should be added or removed, if anything? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I made a preliminary stab at creating these templates, using the Arizona list as a guide and adding some stuff that had been discussed above and on IRC: {{ Routelist top}}, {{ Routelist row}}, {{ Routelist bottom}}. Example:
Number | Length (mi) [2] | Length (km) | Southern or western terminus | Northern or eastern terminus | Formed | Removed | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M-36 | 36 | 58 | US 23 in Ann Arbor | M-28 in Marquette | 1912 | current | ||
SH-135 | 224 | 360 | SH-74 in Goldsby | I-40 in Webbers Falls | 2152 | current | ||
K-100 | 100 | 160 | K-99 in Emporia | Level Road in Yates Center | 1920 | Lua error in Module:Routelist_row at line 254: Type not in database: I. | 1930
||
Thoughts? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Most everything listed is done. I haven't put any cell references in yet, but that won't take much at all. Most importantly, the template is live! A couple things to note:
I just implemented it in List of Interstate Highways in Iowa. If things break, three people who want to see the list will be inconvenienced. – Fredddie ™ 05:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
|sort=
and manually specify a sort key for each row of the table, which would also allow things like 004-1 vs. 004-2 to sort the two M-4s by year of creation, streamline other suffixes, etc.
Imzadi 1979
→ 17:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Could we add a circa flag? If circa_established=yes or circa_decommissioned=yes, wrap the date output in {{ circa}} (or a subst of it), but still sort by the year. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards/Route lists—comments? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
All right, I'm going to give us some conversation starters here about some things people seem to disagree with on the proposed standard. Let's see if we can come to a consensus on them. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This is probably the big one. Should we prefer List of Interstate Highways in X or Interstate Highways in X? Should we allow U.S. Highways to substitute for U.S. Routes? Should this guideline bless any naming convention at all? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we should include county routes in this. While it's questionable that county routes deserve their own articles, I doubt even the most rabid deletionist in the project (probably me :P) opposes a mere list of them. Whether or not every state has them, I do think that when they are used, they should be standardized. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason the standard as currently proposed for state/US/Interstate routes could not be used for county routes? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Optional column for county route lists? Or shall we deprecate this? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Should we have a notes column? Some people want it, others don't like the trivia that ends up in them. Make it optional, or deprecate it? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
How do we handle routes that...
For a lot of the above, this is the perfect reason to not deprecate the notes column. These are precisely the situations that call for that column! Imzadi 1979 → 01:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've updated the standard to include a local names column and a notes column. (I will need to update the templates to support these.) It also explicitly includes county routes. What do people think of the proposed standard now? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Since this has been open nearly a month with no opposition, I'm declaring this proposal accepted and christening this a guideline. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:34, 5 April 2013 (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. |
I tried to join IRC and I got a notification that said "This channel requires that you have registered and identified yourself with the network's nickname registration services (e.g. NickServ). Please see the documentation of this network's nickname registration services that should be found in the MOTD (/motd to display it)." What am I supposed to do about it? Dough 48 72 00:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
A few months ago, I had an idea to create a template to handle references to the National Bridge Inventory, a Federal Highway Administration database that includes information about every bridge in the United States. The information in the database is conveniently arranged with search capabilities at nationalbridges.com. I am ready to start moving forward with this project, but first I wanted to get some feedback on several issues.
There are probably other issues to discuss, but I am drawing a blank right now. V C 17:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
During 2011, we sent over 120 articles to GAN. During the first six months of 2012, we have sent over 110 articles to GAN. Keep up the good work! -- Rs chen 7754 08:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Apparently we want to put WP:SPAM in road articles? So if a turnpike plaza has a McDonald's, that should be stated? This is not done elsewhere in Wikipedia, BWTH. Ignore all rules, right? Student7 ( talk) 21:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a call for submissions to the next issue of the newsletter. Please add anything you want included in the Newsroom.
As a special reminder, to whomever does the leaderboard update for this issue, there is a lag in between the actual counts of articles for each assessment and what is being displayed on the tables. These statistics should probably be double-checked by hand and update manually for the newsletter submission. Imzadi 1979 → 09:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Should it have its own page or be a redirect somewhere? I created it just for fun. Tinton5 ( talk) 20:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Did we ever come to any sort of agreement on whether or not the articles on the state departments of transportation, or their equivalents, fall within our scope? I seem to think we had about three possible options:
Dealing with Michigan as an example, the Michigan State Highway Department was created in 1905 (Michigan Department of State Highways after 1965), and had the various aviation, marine, rail, public transit and non-motorized transportations functions merged into it in 1973. The new agency was called the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation until the name was simplified to its current form in 1978. MDOT celebrated its centennial in 2005, based on the 1905 creation date of its highways-only predecessor. I guess at least in Michigan's case, Michigan State Trunkline Highway System (and its subordinate lists and articles) and List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan (and its subordinate articles) would function as the USRD-specific subarticles to the department. The MDOT article would deal with a summary of those topics in addition to the State Transportation Commission, the Michigan Aeronautics Commission, the Bureau of Aeronautics and Freight Services, the state's Amtrak services, etc. While the largest and most visible function of MDOT is probably the highway system, the article will be touching on planes, trains, boats, and buses too. Especially since we have articles that deal with the highway system itself as a topic, the DOT's history and highway functions are really a summary of the those articles. I'd untag MDOT on the basis that just because Michigan discusses transportation in the state in general as well as listing some highways, we wouldn't tag the state article too. My opinion is that for many states, the same logical would hold as well, especially if there's an article on the highway system, or a main list article that covers it in sufficient detail.
Looking at Category:State departments of transportation of the United States, Maryland State Highway Administration, Massachusetts Highway Department (unless merged into Massachusetts Department of Transportation), and Nebraska Department of Roads; and agencies like the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority in Category:Expressway authorities wouldn't necessarily fall outside of our scope because they're all limited to highway-only functions.
Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 11:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Floydian ( talk · contribs) and I tried to get the 4Mth article. While unfortunately, that went to another article, Idaho State Highway 48 got mentioned in the press release: [4] -- Rs chen 7754 00:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding whether the mention of M-22 merchandise is external promotion. Comments would be appreciated. -- Rs chen 7754 08:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
M-114 had three termini at the time it was decommissioned in the 1940s. Any ideas on how best to display this in the infobox? I'd use the sections, except that the leg along 3 Mile Road was signed the same way as the other two legs along East Beltline Avenue north and south of that intersection when the highway was decommissioned. I'm thinking a simple third terminus, or |terminus_c=
with the accompanying |direction_c=West
would work.
Imzadi 1979
→ 04:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Who supports the creation of Category:New Jersey Turnpike Authority, with subcategories Category:New Jersey Turnpike and create a Category:Garden State Parkway category, since both roads are maintained by the NJTA. This gave me the idea, with Category:Pennsylvania Turnpike currently being discussed for a name change. Tinton5 ( talk) 00:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I try to log on and i get the message " #wikipedia-en-roads #wikimedia-overflow Forwarding to another channel". Dough 48 72 22:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I have updated the USRD template to automatically generate the needs-kml parameter. If an article should not have a KML, you still need to say needs-kml=NA; however, it should be taken care of for you otherwise.
This was my first time dealing with complicated template logic; I'm pretty sure everything works, but if you notice anything broken, let us know so we can fix it. -- Rs chen 7754 10:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Article alerts doesn't seem to be working, so here is an AFD of our article that was started today: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370. -- Rs chen 7754 06:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
In related news, I think it would behoove us to not mention the gains we made during the GAN drive in the forthcoming newsletter. – Fredddie ™ 04:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:NeverLeavesBurrillville has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
According to the Statewide Planning Map, Texas Park Road 1 is split up into PR 1A, PR 1B, PR 1C, PR 1D, and PR 1E, and is signed as so. I plan to create this article in the near future, and I would like for all the shields to be available. As I am unfamiliar with creating shields, I am requesting that someone experienced with it do this. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the latest notability proposal to feature highways. -- Rs chen 7754 23:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know that I started a GAR at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Delaware Route 17/1. -- ELEKHH T 22:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Are there demonstrable omissions in the historic timeline of the roadway? If there are, we have content that needs to be added for broad coverage. M-67 is essentially unchanged from its state when the signs went up in 1919. When US 41 was realigned, M-67 was extended slightly to continue to connect to another state highway on its southern end. As for the road itself, paving was completed at a later date, but otherwise the M-67 you or I would drive today is the same as the M-67 of yesteryear. As for DE 17, it's my understanding that Dough4872 doesn't have access to maps for every year published, or that some past years didn't have a new map. That means he may have gaps in coverage in the articles because he has gaps in the research. That situation should be corrected either way.
DelDOT is the official source for information on the the state highway system in Delaware as MDOT is the same for Michigan. That says something. I will assert broad coverage in terms of the historical timeline when I have official maps in my possession, either scanned or on paper, forming an archive from 1919 until 2012 with only a few gaps in the early years. When I worked on the US 41 article, I could pinpoint the opening of the Marquette Bypass to 1963 through those maps. Since then, I've found a newspaper article that pinpoints it to November 21, 1963. I've changed the citation over to get the more exact date, not because the MSHD maps from 1963 and 1964 are faulty nor because it makes the article any less broad in coverage. Imzadi 1979 → 15:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Now that the GAR has closed as a Keep, what are we going to do to ensure this is less likely to happen in the future? We should make a list of things that we learned during the GAR and things that need improvement in general. Feel free to add to the list. – Fredddie ™ 04:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
One of the complaints at the latest GAR was the lack of non-DOT sources. To help address this problem, I would like to propose converting the Resource pages into a full-fledged department. The main difference (besides the wording) would be the addition of a requests page where editors could request either a specific article for those with database access, or just a check for secondary sources in general. To prevent overloading the department, we would have request limits similar to the shield and map departments, and disallow requests for sources for Stub-Class articles (because you can write a RD and get a jct list to bring it to Start!) Thoughts? -- Rs chen 7754 07:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Article alerts is being annoyingly slow again, but we have another AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delaware Route 17. -- Rs chen 7754 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
For years, we've sorted the individual route categories on Commons with the same sortkeys that we use for the articles here on enwiki, grouping the members of the categories by the hundreds digit of their number. Apparently one user has a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is challenging the long-time status quo. See my Commons talk page. (Posting here since this is an issue of national scope.) – TMF ( talk) 12:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
All FA and A-class articles now have KMLs. There are 310 GAs remaining without KMLs. Thanks to those who are adding them, and if a GA that you wrote does not have one, please consider adding it.
Also, I will be checking for a KML on all USRD GAs that I review; other reviewers are starting to do the same, too, so please make sure you have one before you go to GAN. -- Rs chen 7754 20:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The main WP:USRD page has gotten extremely long; I'm concerned about new users being overwhelmed with information. I've noticed that WP:MILHIST has a more compact design despite their project complexity. Thoughts? -- Rs chen 7754 08:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
So far, I have created a sandbox for how I'd change the main USRD page. Doing the main page inspired me to make a new assessment page. – Fredddie ™ 23:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I just did a redesign of the Canada Roads Project main page over the past two days in the image of MILHIST. Not sure if it would be of any help for doing likewise yourselves, but at the least it may provide some ideas or inspiration. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposed process: Any user may request a B-Class review for a particular article, whether to promote an article to B-Class or to demote an article from B-Class. It is highly frowned upon for a user to promote their own article to B-Class because this assessment boundary is the first to garner feedback from another user.
Feedback and other ideas welcome. V C 00:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Some comments:
Most of this should be common sense, but the events that have transpired over the last few weeks have proven that some editors are sorely lacking in that department. It's sad that things have come to this point. I don't have an issue with anything discussed above, save for point five and a few comments about what B-Class should be.
The WP:1.0 team's "nutshell" description of the B-Class criteria is "The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards." I've always interpreted this to mean that the article is near GA-quality, but has issues (such as sub-par sources or an infobox without a map) that need to be addressed before the articles can be considered for GA. So, while I consider B-Class to be a small notch below GA and a launching point toward GA, I don't see it as a class that should be exclusively holding GA-quality articles that no one's bothered to nominate. That would effectively put near-GAs with very minor issues in C-Class, and that would really garble the assessment scale.
To somewhat echo the comments above, I'm opposed to requiring maps for B-Class articles but supportive of requiring them for potential GAs. I've strongly suggested the latter for the better part of two years, and no one in their right mind should be nominating articles for GA that don't have maps (and in this day and age, a KML). I support requiring KMLs for B-Class articles, but oppose demoting them if that's the only issue the article has, inside or outside a grace period. KMLs take 5-10 minutes to make on average, and getting one made can be as simple as prodding whoever is interested in making them for that state. – TMF ( talk) 02:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't really like this proposal in general. I think if we implement this, we are risking inflating the importance of B-Class to the point that it overlaps GA. To me, B has always been the top rank of the "lower half" articles. It is the stopping-off point before you get into the serious article vetting levels. If we implement this, it feels as though we are basically creating a class redundant to GA—that is what GA is, right, asking someone else to review an article, which they do by ticking off all the boxes on a checklist? I think our existing informal standard of "big three sections reasonably complete and no glaring article issues" is quite enough to get the job done. That it is frowned upon to take assessment upon yourself shouldn't really need to be codified since it's pretty much a cultural norm that we have at all assessment levels (I can't speak for others, but even going stub to start is enough for me to have someone double-check that it does indeed qualify to be bumped up). — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't see a huge fundamental difference between these two proposals (with the modifications mentioned above). VC's does have the additional requirements on the lead, grammar, and KML, but I'm not really seeing anything else. -- Rs chen 7754 09:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
B-Class criteria
| ||
---|---|---|
|
How in the world do I put this in a junction list? (Aren't you folks glad you don't edit Oklahoma?) :) — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I have been thinking, that I would like to create a page on a list of traffic signs in the US. I know there is one for worldwide, at Traffic sign, but it looks incomplete. I would like there to be a gallery of each type of sign found in the US, so readers could have an easy way of looking them up, based from this: [5] and [6]. Perhaps we can start a List of traffic signs in the United States or something close to that. Tinton5 ( talk) 18:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the point of these categories, especially when they lead to edits implying that an Interstate Highway built in the 1960s was "open" in 1908. – TMF ( talk) 02:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I looked through Wikipedia:Overcategorization and we surely have a case to mass-CfD these categories of highways based on opening, constructed, or designated years. These categories are based on non-defining characteristics, arbitrary inclusion criteria, trivial characteristics or intersections, and subjective inclusion criteria. Is overcategorization a sufficient policy basis? V C 17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Getting back to the topic at hand, to respond to the comments about bridges: The completion dates of bridges are less subjective and usually better documented than those of roads, so I think bridge (or tunnel) year categories would better withstand scrutiny than road year categories. V C 14:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see this discussion on the Help Desk, during which it was recommended that I come here. It regards my creation of a Capital Beltway sign image, and my uncertainty as to how it may be used. I want to do more of these, but I'm not sure how to determine if is worthwhile or even necessary. Thank you. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 16:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the difference between a concurrency and an overlap? MikeM2011 ( talk) 19:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I have converted Lewis and Clark Highway to a dab page that may need to be cleaned up. If this can be converted to an article please feel free to do so. – Allen4 names ( IPv6 contributions) 05:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Map of USRD rel WW alt 4.svg is throwing an error, since it is one of your project files, you might want to fix that. No source and no author are indicated, but that automatically sets the no-author cleanup category, and I think a bot tags sourceless images as well. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 03:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Now that I'm through with ranting for the moment...I just came back from Anchorage. I've been hobbling around on a badly bruised ankle for the past four days, so I couldn't cover as much ground as I wished. I did, however, snap a number of photos of Minnesota Drive and the Seward Highway. I hope that I can find/make some time to upload them soon. RadioKAOS ( talk) 23:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
If an article has a road junction list/exit list that is in table format, what template can be placed on the page alerting users to the fact that it needs to be templated (Jct, Jctint, GAint, etc.)? Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 03:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
|needs-jctint=
for the banner on the talk page for tracking purposes, similar to |needs-map=
and |needs-kml=
.
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to take the USRD-specific banners, {{
Mileposts}}
and the wrong direction template, for instance, and remove the visuals. Then we could use the templates as a shorthand for putting articles into tracking categories. –
Fredddie
™ 23:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
So anyway, we now have needs-jctint= on the USRD banner, which takes yes, no, or NA. We have over 10,800 USRD articles now. With AWB runs and some set logic I got the number down to just under 3600. Unfortunately, that means that we're gonna have to do some work. I encourage all active members of USRD to partake in the work; the sooner we can get this done, the closer we are to reaching one of our goals for 2012. See the goals banner for the appropriate categories.
All FA/A/GA articles have been tagged; there are 70 that we need to convert to templates before the end of the year. -- Rs chen 7754 09:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
As it can be seen here, here, and here, there is something wrong with Template:Jcttop. As you can see, for some reason, setting the nocty parameter to yes and the location to none now adds a "The entire highway is located in none." banner above the junction table. This needs to be fixed, as it is currently causing problems at a GAN review, and will likely cause more issues in the near future. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 00:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
|hatnote=off
. –
Fredddie
™ 02:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that our coverage of state highways made up of multiple disjoint segments is inconsistent. In most cases, the segments are covered in one article, such as New Jersey Route 167 or Pennsylvania Route 29. But in other cases, we have multiple articles. For instance, we have Pennsylvania Route 97 (Adams County) and Pennsylvania Route 97 (Erie County), with Pennsylvania Route 97 serving as a dab page. Also, we have a unique way of covering Missouri Route 110, with the original incarnation covered at the Missouri Route 110 title and the new version covered at Chicago–Kansas City Expressway. I feel we need to be consistent in covering these types of situations. Should we lump all the segments into one article or should we cover them separately. Should we only combine them when related and split them when unrelated? Should we have dab pages when there are multiple segments covered separately? Dough 48 72 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I added a major intersections section to the Georgia State Route 368 article. Normally, I have no problem with this, but SR 368 ends at a state line, so I don't understand how to do this. Could someone correct this section, and let me know what I did wrong? Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm reanalyzing my mc trip and find that for many roads/hiwys there are no indications of their mountain passes in lots of the road wiki pages (e.g. CA-299, UT-12...).
For UT-12 between Torrey and Boulder there is a distinct and high mtn pass with a distinct name I forgot. Also for 299 between Eureka and Willow Creek, there are two major elevations I don't find any name here. But I know there was a traffic shield with the name of at least one of the mtn. passes.
Unfortunately, also on Google Maps and Google Earth there is rarely an indication of the mtn pass names.
Since I was a tourist from Europe I have no idea of these names, but still want to know.
I appreciate if you could provide the names of major mtn passes of the (scenic) roads/hiwys.
Lorenz, Zurich, Switzerland
178.83.26.106 ( talk) 09:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, hold on. Since when should this be in junction lists? I downright oppose that. It should only be in route descriptions and maybe a lead if notable enough. (Clearly I misread something.) Mitch32( Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 12:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I have been working on an article for U.S. Route 90 in Florida since late-July 2012. Once I finish it, does that mean that Beach Boulevard (Jacksonville, Florida) will be merged into the article? ----DanTD 16:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I know we've had this discussion in the past, but we need to set a policy regarding old exit numbers in exit lists. The main concern is how long should we include the old exit numbers. Should we include them only in the transitional period, until 10 years after, or forever? We should come to a consensus on what it should be and possibly add it to MOS:RJL. Dough 48 72 23:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
River does not span the location version
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
River spans the location version
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ends with river version
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
}}
|
Note: I added these to facilitate discussion. – Fredddie ™ 22:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute in how the Lincoln Tunnel crossing should be handled in the New Jersey Route 495 exit list. My version uses the standard jctbridge with the river spanning the county and location columns and the state line continuation shown in a separate row but Djflem keeps reverting it to look like it currently does. Which version is better? Dough 48 72 18:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Dough 4872's interest in destabilizing a consensus which he helped to establish is perplexing. Since Sept 22 2006 when municipality location was introduced into the exit list New York City/County have been not included in it. This is because NJ495 does not travel through or have any exits in New York, and including in that column would imply that it did. NJ495 ends in the tunnel at the mid-point of the river at the border established in 1834 (by compact between the states ratified by Congress). Having the river span the location would imply that that the river is not located within the places it is at that point, namely in Weehawken and Manhattan. For the purposes of an article about highway designation exclusively located in one state (NJ in this case), only the portion that is relevent to the state need be notated. Using the current format of destination/note, a simple correction can be made by shifting the NY495 info to the note column to the effect: road continues as NY495 at state line at river midpoint in tunnel. Djflem ( talk) 21:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, M-553 failed FAC today, our first FAC that did not pass in several years. The main issue was that there was not enough support; it needed more independent review. While this largely is not our fault, does anyone have any ideas as to how we can prevent this from happening again? -- Rs chen 7754 20:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure we could really do anything to stop this. I was hesitant to support because I don't want one of our FACs to devolve into USRD-bashing because we were voting as a bloc, and I don't know the MOS or FAC standards well enough to make a legitimate case for a support other than "It passed ACR so it's good enough for me".— Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Just letting you know that we have five ACRs open that need reviews. I plan on adding a sixth once one of my GANs goes through, so the backlog is only going to grow. If you could take some time to review them, that would be amazing. -- Rs chen 7754 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
How often is the Assessment log updated? In particular, where can I see an assessment log for the state of Georgia? Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 22:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 60 in Oklahoma/GA1. I would like a second opinion on whether certain features need to be referenced in the route description. Dough 48 72 16:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Having a problem with GIS data and the creation of KML files for routes, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Maps_task_force/Tutorial#Creating_KMLs_with_GIS_data — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 22:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I've created a new page at the above link to put down suggestions for TFA and coordinate nominations for WP:TFAR. -- Rs chen 7754 05:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
Jctint}}
suite of templates have been updated to add purple for ETC exits and yellow for HOV exits. –
Fredddie
™ 17:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)This came up from an IRC discussion about Exit 352 on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the fact that it is an EZ-Pass only interchange. What I thought of was that we should make a lighter shade of purple (i.e. lavender) to signify exits on a junction list for electronic controlled access. Ones that come to mind include the PA Turnpike (Exits 320, 340, 352), the Atlantic City Expressway (exit 17), IL toll roads, etc. I'll leave the floor open, curious to if the project wants to signify it. I personally don't think the "Partial access interchange" fairly covers this type of access. Mitch32( Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 00:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Rschen brings up a valid point about HOV-/HOT-only exits, and there are tolled exits in other states where being assessed a toll on the ramp is a notable exception. (On I-355 in IL, some ramps assess a toll on exit in addition to the tolls assessed on the mainline toll barriers, but unlike the ticket systems used in IN or OH, tolls aren't assessed on all exits.)
So what I'm thinking is using the lavender for toll-specific exceptions: ETC-only exits, or exits where a toll is specifically assessed to use that ramp to leave the freeway. {{
legendRJL}} would be updated to use a |ETC=yes
or |toll=y
to display the legend for the color. HOV-/HOT-only items could use another color shade (yellow and blue are the only choices left of the basic rainbow) with a |hov=y
option to display that addition to the key. This way these new additions only appear in the key where appropriate (Michigan doesn't have ETC nor HOV/HOT situations).
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on {{
LegendRJL/sandbox}}
. A problem I'm finding is that the light purple colors I proposed are too close to the reddish color used for incomplete movements. If we were to go much darker, we would have to make the row text white to be WP:COLOR compliant. –
Fredddie
™ 15:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Can we get back to the point? We have three options on the table: Add/don't add an ETC Color, Change the colors for Incomplete access and what color to make the ETC one. My thought is just adopt a color that we can agree on that is a lighter shade of purple and doesn't interfere with the eyes. Mitch32( Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 23:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
Jctbridge}}
uses {{
Jctint/core}}
just like all the other {{
Jctint}}
-family templates, this will work right away. –
Fredddie
™ 14:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC){{
Jctint/core/sandbox}}
can be copied to {{
Jctint/core}}
. After that's done, {{
Jctint/type}}
should be semi-protected per
WP:HRT. –
Fredddie
™ 15:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Is there a reliable source for a list of all of the current state highways in the state of Georgia? I have noticed that some of the state route articles don't currently exist, and I want to eliminate the red links. Thanks! Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 01:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Just another reminder that our IRC chat channel is always open, and there's people in it frequently (the best times are afternoons and evenings US time). I'll be inviting the newer users on their talk pages, but anyone is welcome! -- Rs chen 7754 07:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Overall FAC pass rate: 69.64%
Placement of A-Class articles: 61.05% pass their first FAC
Success rate of ACR: 81.69% pass their first FAC
Note: the UK Roads WikiProject is not included in the above statistics, and list articles are not included either. Last updated: sometime in 2015 |
Thanks to everyone who's been helping out at ACR! We still have quite a backlog, with 7 ACRs open, and up to 5 potential nominees coming shortly. -- Rs chen 7754 08:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not at all proposing we add an A-Class List assessment like WP:MILHIST has, but do you think it would be a good idea to take any potential FLC-bound lists through ACR before going to FLC? – Fredddie ™ 03:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Many of us are aware of the chaotic events that have been happening over the last few weeks on Wikipedia. Those of us in the IRC channel are monitoring those events, and I am participating in many of the discussions, but as far as we know, this will not affect the roads projects in general. Ever since 2008, we have kept the drama far from our doorsteps, with only a few minor incidents here and there. We have enough administrators to deal with the project's needs, and a few editors who would probably pass RFA if we need more, so we don't need to worry about administrators leaving en masse. Please shoot me an email if you have any questions or concerns. -- Rs chen 7754 04:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
A user insists on adding a nonstandard section to the I-96 article called "I-96 Sniper". Your comments would be appreciated. -- Rs chen 7754 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Trying to restart the A-List discussion here since it got archived...
Why don't we adopt the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, since FLC is the end goal of an A-List? -- Rs chen 7754 07:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been looking at the Georgia County Maps, and I have come across some routes on them that are not on the List of numbered highways in Georgia (U.S. state) page. There are the normal alternate, business, bypass, connector, loop, and spur routes, however, there are also some state routes that have "CW", "DU", "EA", "LO", "SE", "SO", "TA", and "WE" suffixes on them. Can someone tell me what these road abbreviations are? Also, the "List" page above only has the routes numbered 1-388, some 400-series routes, and a few 500-series routes. On the GDOT maps, there are routes in the 700-, 800-, 900-, 1000-, 1100-, and 1200-series. What is up with that? Since the GDOT doesn't have a route log, this is very confusing. There is also confusion over roads listed as either future or future alignments. Some are broken into as many as 5+ segments; some are less than a mile long. Thank you for your help. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 08:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This is the monthly reminder that we need reviewers at ACR! We're at 7 articles now, and more are definitely on the way! -- Rs chen 7754 03:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
So I and an anonymous poster have been posting newly-posted exit numbers on the exit list on Ohio State Route 2. I have been putting "citation needed" templates next to each of them since there isn't really a direct source yet, but it's starting to look silly (I didn't just put "cn" in the column header because I-90's exit numbers where SR-2 runs with it are also listed). It's been noted with a RS that Ohio has started to do this ( Exit numbers in the United States#Other highways, although the source is inaccessible to the general public now) and I even just found an internal ODOT source via a Google search which reaffirms that and even tells how to calculate exit numbers for this particular posting activity ( Project 113004 Addendum: Q/A 25, 5/27/11), but I haven't found an ODOT document which lists specific numbers, and I don't anticipate one anytime soon since they even overtly identify that their Interstate exit guide is no longer being updated. Are we really going to have to wait for the first edition of the Ohio Transportation Map with these identified, assuming that they ever are, to remove the "cn"? If I understand WP:RS and WP:SYNTH, unfortunately I don't know of any way to be able to list them until then. Mapsax ( talk) 13:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Collapsing. Please do not WP:BITE the newcomers. Unfortunately, we're limited to the DOT per our reliable source policy, but further discussion on the actual issues at hand is welcome, not this tangential stuff on who wrote the longest comment (a contest I clearly won a section above). -- Rs chen 7754 10:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC) |
---|
This weekend, I started a discussion on VC's talk page to get his input on the GeoTRAQS application, because the user interface appears to have changed since he used it earlier this year, and which resulted in the Tutorial he wrote on the subject. After a quick look, VC confirmed this suspicion, making this tool of questionable use. Yesterday, after spending some time in this application, I discovered a drawing tool, which allows the user to draw out the route using straight-line vectors (requiring a lot of clicking to account for curves, needless to say), but which then spit back milage down to 1/100 of a mile. I played with the tool quite a bit, and got it to work consistently, but then noticed that the mile points it returned appear to be quite long compared to other data, such as the archived GDOT 444 report, or even when compared to Google Map measurements. To put the tool to a test, I did the following: I measured these 4 different distances:
The reason why I chose those distances is that they all came out to be very close to even mile measurements in my car, which is one of these 4 measuring methods:
Based on these readings, as unscientific as they are, I don't know that GeoTRAQS can be relied upon for Georgia mile points. Given that statement, I am therefore wondering whether we are in a position to have to rely on Google Maps as the only tool that will provide us with at least a decent approximation of distances between intersections. The GDOT 444 report was last updated on 2002, and there have been numerous changes in routes since that time, making that source also less than optimal. Thoughts? Thank you! Concertmusic ( talk) 14:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I plan to comment here sometime today (it's already going to be a crazy day) but my initial impression is that this doesn't strike me as TLDR. -- Rs chen 7754 17:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
|
A lot of us will be hanging out on IRC tomorrow night as the election results come in and you're welcome to sign in! For more information on connecting, see WP:HWY/IRC. Warning: it might get a bit crazy. :) -- Rs chen 7754 19:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I just realized that I have been adding way too many intersections into the Georgia State Route articles, at least when based on the standard for that section found on this page. Having said that, would someone be able to explain to me the reasoning behind the 10 or fewer intersections, especially on state routes?
For anyone who has driven any state routes, especially ones not in urban areas, any intersection with another state route is a significant event. In addition, it is often at these intersections that a route's direction may change, a concurrency starts, or that the route will intersect a community worth bringing to the attention of the reader. One could argue that all of these intersections could be mentioned in the Route Description, but descriptive text is harder to digest than a good listing of intersections in the Infobox.
In other words, I am arguing that ALL intersections with any route of equal or higher status should be listed in the Infobox. Therefore, on a Georgia State Route, all intersections with other state routes, US highways, and Interstates should be listed, IMHO.
Comments? Thank you! Concertmusic ( talk) 17:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
May 13, 2012, will mark the centennial since the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System was created. That article is at WP:HWY/ACR, but we've never had an article on a whole highway system go up that far on the scale, so I'm inviting project members to participate in the ACR to make suggestions in terms of content and organization before we do the usual review process to look at prose, sources/sourcing, images and the like. My personal goal is to take the article to WP:FAC early next year so that it can run as WP:TFA on the anniversary. Imzadi 1979 → 09:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I've had people make requests for me to do AWB jobs as one of the few USRD editors who has access to the tool and knows how to use it. I've started a new requests page at User:Rschen7754/AWB. -- Rs chen 7754 23:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I was just on the NDOR log book and all the highways in Nebraska are listed as "State Highways". Therefore, I personally think all of them should be renamed from Nebraska Highway X to Nebraska State Highway X. Also, Connecting Links and Spurs are listed as State Connecting Links and State Spurs, respectively. It seem to me they should all be renamed. DandyDan2007 ( talk) 23:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, any comments? -- Rs chen 7754 23:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I have written this guide to help new reviewers, and new editors who want to bring their articles to ACR. Let me know if you have anything to add! -- Rs chen 7754 09:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The I-49 designation is going live in Missouri on December 12. I have just created Interstate 49 in Missouri, although it still needs some work (mainly a route description). If someone has some time, Interstate 49 in Louisiana will need to be created, and then Interstate 49 cleaned up to more closely resemble a main article. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
It's that time of the year where we do the newsletter! If you want to write a super cool story, or you want to share what's going on in your state, feel free to do so! Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Newsroom is the place. Please submit stuff within the next week. Thanks! -- Rs chen 7754 08:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I want to throw it out there. For scenic highway articles, I'd like to propose dropping the requirement (tacit or otherwise) that it have an infobox if there is, or could be, a decent lead image. Let me be clear, I am not proposing banning them altogether on scenic highways. To do this, I would also propose the following guidelines: 1) The image would be 300 pixels wide (the width of a standard infobox), 2) Portrait orientation would be preferred (will look bigger), 3) No SVG shield graphics or April Fool's Day nominees, and 4) Bonus points for recognized works ( Commons:QI or WP:FP). – Fredddie ™ 08:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
There are many highways whose inventory directions are different from their signed directions. That is, a route may run northwest–southeast on a map, and be inventoried from south to north in the state highway department log books, but is signed east–west. I was wondering (1) whether it is more prudent to produce road junction lists and route descriptions in the inventory direction or the signed direction—we typically write those article sections south to north and west to east—for cases where inventory and signage conflict; and (2) how to reference signage directions, which is necessary for upper class articles if we state something like "Route X is signed east–west." V C 04:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
So... any suggestions? -- Rs chen 7754 06:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I am a new editor to the project (but not to Wikipedia). I have some time but I'm not exactly sure what work is needed. Still trying to learn. →
Michael J
Ⓣ
Ⓒ
Ⓜ 23:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
USRD Announcements}}
has a lot of backlog links in the right column. –
Fredddie
™ 15:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
So if I'm hearing everybody right, our two biggest goals for 2013 should be:
Then once they're here, and get their feet wet, we urge them to:
The first three are meta-goals to get us more help and where we need it. Obviously, the rest of us can do the bottom two :) – Fredddie ™ 15:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree about the first three goals not being actionable, but I understand the sentiment. After all, it is easier to point to X number of new Good Articles or Y percent improvement in wikiwork statistics than to point out infrastructure improvements or quantify how many new, productive editors the project has gained. I think goals 1 and 3 are definitely actionable, while goal 2 will take a little longer to crack.
As with any set of infrastructure improvements, we can look to other projects that have done it and done it well. V C 19:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
So... any more thoughts? -- Rschen7754 public ( talk) 15:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a quantifiable goal. Get the USRD relative WikiWork down to 4.400. With roughly 11,000 articles, we would need to improve by roughly 1600 classes to reach it. – Fredddie ™ 01:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
In conjunction with that, another idea might be to have 25 states (i.e. half) destubbed by December 31, 2013. We currently have 11 (13 if you count DC and Guam), with a fair number of states within striking distance (there are two states with 1 stub, two with 2 stubs, and quite a few more with less than 10). Not terribly out of reach, and progress on this would be progress on the wikiwork. This would give people who like stub drives a thing to do, and people that don't like them could go do regular wikiwork stuff. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm start a page to help with coordination of the tasks that we need to keep the project running, as we continue to grow in infrastructure and editors. So far it's at User:Rschen7754/Coordination. I've added what I'm aware of, and this is basically the status quo, just written down. Feel free to add new tasks or add yourself to any tasks; I'm sure that stuff got missed. On the talk page we can post about wikibreaks or anything like that. Comments? Suggestions? -- Rs chen 7754 06:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I suddenly discovered a big goof regarding the junction list for Interstate 40 in Oklahoma; All the I-40 Business Routes and Loops lead to redlinks to Michigan for whatever crazy reason. I thought this would be an easy problem to fix, but that turned out not to be true. What gives? --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 18:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
We need some suggestions for Selected Picture and Did you know? for Portal:U.S. Roads for next month. Dough 48 72 01:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It's been a few years since we've attempted a WikiCup. I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to participate. I am willing to coordinate it, but I'd like some input on what you'd like to get out of it. Here are a few ideas that I have:
If you have any ideas, please submit them below. – Fredddie ™ 05:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Have we ever had a FA during the past Cups? I...don't recall any. I admit that 10,000 points for a getting a FA in one of the bottom five states is a bit ridiculous, but it got your attention, didn't it? I do like Scott's points proposal, and I'll knock the top tier back to the top five and give half points instead of no points. Regarding DYK, would it be better to give points for 5x expansions only or give points for every DYK but scale them back? – Fredddie ™ 02:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the year 2013 on Wikipedia! This is just a reminder that our 2013 goals are now active, as listed on the project page.
As far as our 2012 goals:
Congratulations to everyone on their hard work!
Many of us have been away over the holidays, but we hope to get a new newsletter out soon. As always, you can join us on the IRC channel; see WP:HWY/IRC for details. -- Rs chen 7754 00:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. The following is a neutrally worded courtesy message:
Portal:Massachusetts has been nominated for Featured Portal status. The nomination page is Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Massachusetts.
As a WikiProject with a related sphere of interest, you are being notified of the proceedings, and invited to participate in them.
Yours, Sven Manguard Wha? 17:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Our presence on Commons is at commons:COM:USRD, and on Wikidata at d:WD:USRD. -- Rs chen 7754 05:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Since it needs to be discussed, and probably should be added to WP:USRD/STDS—what exactly should be in each highway category, e.g. Category:U.S. Route 60? I think everyone can agree that the main US-60 article should be present, and all of the US-60 in X state-detail articles. Historically, I believe child route articles, such as US-160 are included as well. Do we want to continue this or move all child routes to their own category (possibly a subcat of the parent route's category)? Should routes that overlap with the focus route be included in the category? What about designations for former alignments of the focus routes, or routes that were subsumed by the focus route? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Another thing we should probably be writing down while we're doing this—what should have categories for individual highways? Just U.S. and Interstate routes, and not state routes? If we decide to move the child route pages to new categories, perhaps we should suggest only doing so if there are multiple pages besides the main article (i.e. at least one S/D article or bannered route page has to exist). — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I take the opposite view, let's take U.S. Route 66. I have no doubt that category needs some pruning (as does everything associated with that article) but the former route IS what gives that route notability. If the category were limited to only active routes and sub-articles, the category would be, well, empty. I would also argue that at least for the former transcontinental arteries that have been decommissioned in the western states thanks to the interstate highway system, (read most of the US highways that have a 0 as the final digit) former alignments ARE notable enough to merit being included in the category. I would also argue that significant stretches of former auto trails merit a category mention too. I'll grant you that some county route that used to be part of US 40 before a new alignment was built 1/2 mile to the north, yeah that's iffy. Dave ( talk) 17:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Yes Imzadi I know I owe you an article review. I'm working on it, I promise.
We now also have a page on Meta: m:USRD. This is more for outreach efforts and interwiki discussion rather than anything else, like most of the other pages on Meta. -- Rs chen 7754 07:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
As I have driven through parts of Georgia, I have noticed signs for upcoming intersections. These are the kind with the name of the upcoming road listed underneath. Some of them say "CR&XXX". Now, does Georgia actually have county routes? If so, can they be added to Wikipedia at all? I haven't done any search on Google -- or elsewhere -- for them. I just wondered if any of you had any information on them. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 00:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I am making a change to {{
Infobox road/shieldmain/USA/CR}}
that will likely break a few instances of county road shields in Florida. Right now it's a mishmash of code caused by the new naming scheme we rolled out in the last year and this will vastly simplify things. Anyone with the filemover right on Commons is encouraged to help out. Shields will need to be at "<county> County <number>.svg". –
Fredddie
™ 06:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds these three page moves to be a bit bizarre? The purpose of the pages was clear before the rename; now, the title could easily lead people to think that it's cruft. – TMF ( talk) 15:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
In the particular case of these three pages, these look to be more like disambiguation pages than set index lists. The issue may be that Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title was moved to that name to address pages like List of highways numbered 2 -- where some, but not all of the entries might be ambiguous with "Route 2", and some but not all of the entries might be ambiguous with "Highway 2", etc. Thus the list is heterogeneous with regards to disambiguation, but they all share the common property of having "2" as an identifying number. Thus that sort of page is clearly a set index rather than a disambiguation page. However, where a road name is ambiguous, it seems that could be a disambiguation page. However, by analogy with set index usage for ships and mountains {{ shipindex}} and {{ mountain index}}, the set index classification is also used for pages that address ambiguous uses. So it is a mixed bag and previously the subject of extensive discussion. older ≠ wiser 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Now that we have a USRD at Commons, do you think it would be a good idea to migrate our shields and maps task forces to Commons? – Fredddie ™ 03:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a claim made at U.S. Route 20 that U.S. Routes don't exist within national parks, and thus any such route that crosses such a park is considered to be disjointed. Does anyone have any reliable sources which state this to be true? I've driven any number of U.S. Routes through any number of national parks, and never noticed that the Route stopped existing, nor have I ever heard this as a policy. For example, U.S. Route 441 is the main north-south route through the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and as far as I can remember, there's no indication it stops at the park boundaries. Likewise, U.S. Route 89 crosses several national parks. Can someone verify whether or not the claim in the U.S. 20 article is valid? -- Jayron 32 21:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
As you may know, Wikidata today launched phase 1 (the interwiki links) on the Hebrew and Italian Wikipedias: http://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/01/30/wikidata-coming-to-the-next-two-wikipedias/. The important news is that it will be launching on the English Wikipedia on February 11th. That is also the same day that Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada–Wendover, Utah) will be TFA, by the way. Before then we ideally want to finish up phase 1 (descriptions, finishing any missing items, etc.) On that day, hopefully enwp won't spiral out of control with people removing interwiki links before they're input into Wikidata; we should be good to go however since over 90% of our items are created and set up already. I'm not sure if we should be removing interwikis from our articles en masse after February 11th yet.
Ideally, we want to finish phase 1 because the first parts of phase 2 will be deploying on February 4th. This is where Wikidata really begins for us. On that day, two types of fields will be added to items: links to media on Commons, and links to other items. This will allow us to have a link to a highway's map and shield on Commons, as well as form hierarchical relationships (say, auxiliary routes). I'm hoping to start a discussion to get this all figured out on Wikidata sometime soon, before the chaos erupts February 4th. These fields will not be deployed onto Wikipedia for a few weeks, so we'll have a bit of time to figure it all out. -- Rs chen 7754 20:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Highway 2 Bridge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 2 Bridge until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
[7] is an example item with three statements. I would suggest holding off on adding these to articles en masse for a few days, since you risk having to redo them should something change. Besides, we still have Phase 1 to finish :) I'll be proposing a few more statements as well over the next few days. -- Rs chen 7754 20:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi...I am an inactive member here, hoping to change that but never seeming to find the time. I do a lot with the Editor Retention Project, and we have started an editor recognition program. I am just gonna post the ad, and you all can do what you would like with it. Hope some of you would contribute a nomination or two! Gtwfan52 ( talk) 05:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you know an under-appreciated editor that should be recognized? | |
Hi! The folks over at WER-Editor of the Week are looking for some help! We need nominations for "Editor of the Week". The ideal candidate is an editor who works hard, possibly doing behind-the-scenes kind of stuff, that just doesn't get recognized as much as they should. Although we have a preference for newer editors, any under recognized editor is eligible. So please make a note of this, and give us your nomination at: WP:EotW/N. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 05:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC) |
Hi! Would someone mind giving I-96 a review at ACR? It's been sitting for months with no activity. Remember it's also worth 15 points at the USRD Cup! -- Rs chen 7754 08:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to put out there I am in the process of adding the category Roads designated in XXXX (year) on several highway pages, to populate the categories. If anyone is willing to help, that would be great. Tinton5 ( talk) 01:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Should we CfD the categories? – TC N7 JM 18:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this is interesting, but here's a link... -- Rs chen 7754 22:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Along those same lines, I mentioned in IRC the other night about an idea to speed up the backlog at MTF/R. Basically, it would apply the MTF style to OpenStreetMap so we could simply export maps for our use. I have no idea how to go forward from this, but maybe by putting it in writing something will come of it. – Fredddie ™ 23:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if it matters much, but is there a styling guide to whether the abbreviated road name should be bolded? ( Interstate 68 is not, but Interstate 355) is...) It seems to be that the majority are bold, but there are many, including a number of the interstate articles, which do not bold the "I-.." Thanks. " Pepper" @ 21:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, a week's gone by since the enwp launch and things are off to a good start. We're working to finish up Phase 1 on 14 more states, plus USH. Phase 2 has begun in earnest. So far we have 5 properties, and there is a massive bot run to add three of them (highway system, maintained by, owner) to all IH, USH, and state highway items. Alabama through Maine are going to run tonight, and the rest will run at some other date within the next week. I have a few more ideas for items that can be done with the limited data types that we have, but that will come at some point once we're caught up. -- Rs chen 7754 10:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
File:SawgrassExpressway-MainSign-July1992.jpg, which is claimed to be taken in 1992 by Formulanone ( talk · contribs), looks like a duplicate of this photo taken by Michael Summa in 1986. Dough 48 72 20:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The plot thickens: Jake from the AARoads Shield Gallery says the description there is in error; it is not the work of Michael Summa! He says he is not sure who the actual photographer is, and may well be Formulanone. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia:Help desk#Boilerplate prose copied from another article:
I'm looking for the specific policy or guideline about making boilerplate copies of prose from one article which repeat fundamental points about that article into tangentially-related articles (not daughter pages where a summary might be appropriate). This seems very simple, but I can't find a good reference. Thanks. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 20:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
End copy -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 01:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Chaswmsday#Ohio State Routes edits:
Please don't remove the NHS and AADT info, most every other road article that is at ~B or above has this info. So why would these not have this info. Detcin ( talk) 00:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
End copy -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 01:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Prior to editing, I researched the WP Help pages and asked a Help desk question since this question would seem widespread, and not specifically Roads-related.
I removed boilerplate prose from several Route articles specifically describing the rationale of the NHS, defining AADT and describing the responsibilities of Ohio DOT. I believe that the basic nature of WP calls for such details to exist within those specific articles, not in articles merely referencing other articles, unless there is a parent-child or general-specific relationship between the articles. I also believe that leaving the articles in this state is a dangerous invitation to massive Template:Sync problems if any of the underlying details would happen to change.
My edit summaries were of the form: "Removed boilerplate prose describing other WP articles, best left to those articles & avoiding future Template:Sync problems."
My edits were reverted by User:Detcin - in a couple of cases, twice.
Please weigh in. Thanks! -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 01:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's all that likely that the underlying details of what NHS is are likely to change all that much. Routes may be added and dropped from it, but what the system is will probably remain static, so I don't really see much of a sync issue. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I find it curious that, quoting @Imzadi1979, the mere thought that "a reader shipped off to another article may not come back to the subject article to continue reading" is severely onerous to that reader, who couldn't possibly go back a page in their browser, or open the new article in a separate tab, assuming that a casual reader of a road article is even remotely interested in the details of a linked article, which we must summarily describe in the first article. Yet, @Rschen7754 has repeatedly redirected readers of this thread to the locations of some of the original comments, collapsed them (incorrectly), both of which violate Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and is now entreating me to do so, as some sort of Sync problem, even though the former comment locations have been marked as redirected here. Unlike the reader of the road article, those editors who are interested enough to read this thread in all likelihood would want to read the thread from the beginning. So no. No collapse. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 06:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me state how I got here. Having driven these roads in real life, I have edited Ohio State Route 444 and Ohio State Route 844. While a cursory examination of @ Detcin's edits shows many useful contributions, these I felt were violations of Wikipedia's basic principles and fraught with danger: "National Highway System, a system of routes determined to be the most important for the nation's economy, mobility and defense." No comment for now. "The highway is maintained by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) like all other state routes in the state." Really, the state DOT maintains all state routes?? Who'd a thunk it?? Plus, irrelevant to the road article. "The department tracks the traffic volumes along all state highways as a part of its maintenance responsibilities using a metric called average annual daily traffic [sic] (AADT). This measurement is a calculation of the traffic level along a segment of roadway for any average day of the year." Yeah, half-sentences there (irony).
I found these so egregious in over-defining linked terms and assuring Template:Sync problems in the future that I convinced myself that @Detcin was responsible for this solely in his/her edits. That's why I went first to Help and Help Desk. I was certain that over-defining a linked term was an issue that had already long been dealt with by WP in general. It wasn't. When I found agreement in Help Desk, I set about boldly "correcting" @Detcin's road articles, edit-summarying them accordingly. If @Detcin objected, I could sway her/him with the over-defining and Sync arguments. Only to find...that this format was Standard Operating Procedure in the US Roads Project. Astounding!
As to some of the arguments, would it now be OK for me to, after the first reference to Interstate Highway System, mention the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways" and/or give a half or full or two sentence description of its transportation and defense rationale? These points may or may not be obvious to Americans, but likely wouldn't be to non-US readers. Should I further describe Wright-Patterson Air Force Base or Wright State University, which are linked w/i the OH SR 844 article? Or myriad and sundry other links within road articles? If not, why not? This definitely is not my first rodeo, so I expect I'll get "of course not, those cases are entirely different" comments, but I've found, unfortunately, that some editors will use any type of "pretzel logic" to justify their own WP:ILIKEITs, while denigrating similar counter-examples ("YOULIKEITs").
It's all kind of a matter of degree: summaries are valid if there is a parent-child article relationship. Sometimes, a little bit of explanatory text about a linked term is helpful. I've always rebelled against those editors who try to enforce hard-and-fast policy regulations on every situation. I see WP primarily as a work of art, with every situation and article having its own set of challenges. However, I believe that in these particular cases, re-describing these links w/i the Road articles has gone too far. True, NHS probably won't change, but unless the editors who claim that work at FHWA and/or can work a crystal ball, that isn't a given. Maybe AADT will be redefined with some better metric. Sure, ODOT currently maintains Ohio State Routes, but what about in the future? I can easily imagine a scenario where, to cut the state budget, Ohio pushes responsibility for traffic counts down to the counties, municipalities and/or townships in an unfunded mandate. They've certainly done that before. With some of these, you still might have to do some editing, but the verbose verbiage currently existing would make that all the more difficult.
The least objectionable of these is the definition of NHS. It truly adds about a half-sentence of prose, and if it had been the only example, I might have left it alone. And yet...wait for it... In OH SRs 444 & 844, we have "a system of routes determined to be the most important for the nation's economy, mobility and defense". In California State Route 52 we have "a network of roadways important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility". Seems like a small quibble, no? But which is it? How many road articles have the first version, how many the second? Is there a third version...or more? I've seen a bunch of road articles stating that a route is part of NHS and I've seen other articles stating that another route is not. Is the goal to include NHS verbiage in every single road article? Has that already been accomplished? From upthread: "we are bound by our sources; we have to go by what the sources [say]. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth." One of these versions misquotes and thus mischaracterizes how the US National Highway System defines itself. Is this an act of WP:Original research? Or an act of WP:Synthesis? Or was it simply a Template:Sync issue? One of these two versions is correct, at least currently. Which one? How many articles must now be corrected? And that, folks, is my point. Thanks for reading. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 09:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for opening a can of worms here by not looking into this question more deeply before making my comments at the Help Desk (copied above). I will of course defer to the experts on this WikiProject.-- ukexpat ( talk) 13:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: I thought we were having a civil conversation on my talk page, mostly about my past experiences with a few bullying editors on other projects and how I, at first, feared that heavy-handed tactics were going to be used in this discussion. Our conversations had alleviated my fears, but now there's an outside editor involved, carrying this discussion away from here, to her/his user page, at User talk:Dank#USRD comment, where I feel that you mischaracterized the intent of my comments, which I believe I explained were venting about those earlier experiences and my earlier fears, in somewhat of a " WP:A nice cup of tea and a sit down" fashion. If my venting made you think I was trying to make veiled comments about you, or this discussion, please be assured I absolutely was not. Again, just discourse. To wit:
I believe it's generally better practice to leave the definition of a linked term to that term's own article. Unlike the aforementioned bullies, that's certainly not an absolute ("generally" and "better", not "always" and "required"). IMO, if someone is interested enough, they'll visit the link. If they don't come back to the first page, so what? We can't dictate another reader's interests. My current browser will give me a thumbnail of ref's if I hover over them. Maybe in the future (or maybe it already happens in other browsers), WP will give a thumbnail of the "lead" when we hover over a link. So WP's implementation might obsolete the practice as it stands here.
In the specific case of NHS, again, IMO, there is a large distinction between "important roads" and "THE MOST important roads". Equivalent verbiage is totally unobjectionable. But a version that makes a claim not matching the source mischaracterizes the intent of the source and pretty much amounts to WP:Original research. Again, as to NHS, there is a mini-debate within this thread about whether "principal arterials" under "MAP-21" are now included (I believe they are, but that's a separate issue). Government agencies and human nature being what they are, it's likely that the NHS definition wouldn't change. But, it's at least possible that the FHWA could say that NHS roads are important, while the MAP-21 arterials merely connect to important roads. Again, probably not likely, but this is really all about a larger point, anyway. And that's all I intend to say on this subject. No hard feelings intended or taken. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 17:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: As mentioned in another section, I've asked the question about NHS principal arterials at Talk:National Highway System (United States)#Principal arterials under MAP-21.
Because National Highway System (United States) is an important attribute in U.S. Road articles, I'm wondering if that shouldn't also be indicated in an article's Infobox. I played around with populating Template:Infobox road's "System" parameter, but that would involve manual intervention for each article and the result, just below "Highway System", created IMO, a hinky-looking line break just after it.
Within Template:Infobox road/browselinks/USA (I had to edit), NHS exists, so it appears that a proper wikilink might possibly be generated. But I would have to seriously read up on my already limited understanding of template code to figure it out.
Does anyone else think this idea has merit and would know how to implement? Thanks. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 19:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|NHS=yes
on articles that are part of the NHS. –
Fredddie
™ 22:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It in my opinion has no place in the infobox due to the grand amount these could add up to in infobox length. The problem with adding more stuff to the infobox personally is that it clutters smaller articles, and just looks sloppy really. I also do tend to believe the NHS isn't really a good system to base the country on, but that's what they use. Primarily 1 or 2 sentences in the route description suffices. Mitch32( The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 14:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys. I was just working on some of the non-existent categories and came across Category:Temporary_jct_template_category. I've not looked at all of the members but eg U.S. Route 59 in Oklahoma has been in this "temporary" category for nearly 3 years! From that diff it looks like the category is set by a parameter buried deep in {{ jct}} so I figured it's not for me to meddle with it but I thought I would bring it to your attention. Le Deluge ( talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC) (edit - another relevant diff in Western Kentucky Parkway on 24 September 2011) Le Deluge ( talk) 01:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Some discussion regarding sources. -- Rs chen 7754 20:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 90 in Ohio#Lake and Ashtabula County Exits. I feel confident in my responses and actions ( WP:BOLD but not overbearing) but would like comments. Mapsax ( talk) 14:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking about converting portions of our most used templates (Infobox road, jct, jctint, USRD, etc) to Lua. I hope to be setting up a testing environment at [12] so that we're not making changes go live immediately. We may have to redo some of these templates entirely once Wikidata is fully deployed; however, I'm hoping to convert some of the more complicated parserfunctions to Lua so that they are less computationally expensive and reduce page loading time. -- Rs chen 7754 21:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I figure I should let everyone know, I'm trying to feel out how Lua works by converting {{ Routelist row}} to Lua. See Module:Routelist row (Lua code), User:Scott5114/SandboxT (template), User:Scott5114/SandboxU (usage). So far beltway/termini work, and row colors kinda work (decommissioned works but future doesn't yet). — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Important dates:
My thoughts are to do some sort of switch statement to allow data to come from Wikidata, but to have the possibility of a local override as a lot of stuff isn't on there yet.
As far as work on Wikidata goes, things have slowed down a bit as the bot is currently occupied, but we're still making progress. -- Rs chen 7754 21:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Check it out! -- Rs chen 7754 08:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing this in several other WikiProjects where I take active part. The idea got some publicity in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-25/WikiProject report, but nobody is talking about making ω more widely reported... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
One of your key editors, Rschen7754 (really great work, way beyond my current skill level), made these edits (march 22, "removed" section) to the talk pages of WP:San Francisco Bay Area articles, removing them from the SFBA task force and WP:California. I understand the reasoning given (and won't revert), that since other states' road articles are not also in the state projects, why should California roads be in the California project? My question is the reverse: why aren't other road articles in those other state projects? I can't find any hard and fast rules for avoiding overlap of WikiProjects. The best i can find, with a cursory search, is Wikipedia:WikiProject: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." (somewhat tangential); and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Identify the best scope: "Too much overlap: If the scope is too closely related to an existing project, then having separate projects is usually inefficient and counterproductive, because you wind up dividing the few interested editors across multiple projects. This approach maximizes administrative hassles and minimizes collaboration. However, there is no rule that prohibits two separate groups of editors from being interested in the same articles (my emphasis)." We do have other Wikiprojects whose content is almost, or completely, enclosed by the Cali project, such as the University of California (inactive), California State University (inactive) and Stanford projects, and I havent seen a clear pattern of no overlap with them. We also have such issues as whether the California project should somehow be automatically included in the US project, which of course includes some states but not others. I think ive made my concerns clear. Does anyone here know more about how such issues are resolved? i know its not a content issue, so we wont need to find references, etc, and any sort of edit war on this is rather silly. I would especially like to know if there are more guidelines for managing project overlap. i am a somewhat maniacal editor for the SFBA project (the project and the portal were fairly moribund until i came along), but i want to play well with others while doing so. After all, if every time someone takes an action (like a cdrom) using all the Cali project articles and automatically includes the cali road project articles, it really doesnt matter, does it? Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
So, I just recently used {{
welcome-roads}}
and decided to read over it for the first time, as normally I just drop the template and leave. I found a line that might need tweaking.
There is a line that reads "If you live in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide."
I propose changing it to "If your interest is in roads in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide."
or something similar, since you don't need to live in the United States to be interested in U.S. roads.
Let me know what you guys think. T C N7JM 16:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Done since there were no objections. Thanks for your input! T C N7JM 15:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to invite you to help organize the 2013 Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest in the United States. Last year, over 22,000 files were uploaded (90% by new Wikipedia users) to illustrate articles about historic places in the United States. We need all the help we can get, so if you're interested in organizing the contest, please add your username at this page. If you have any questions, please don't post them here - place a new message on User talk:Mono. Thanks, Mono 15:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I have been watching List of bannered U.S. Routes (on my watchlist) and have noticed that an IP user is adding lots of code and entries. However, the page is looking as if it is being vandalized. I would like to get this page corrected, but I think more experienced editors should take a look at it and deal with the user. Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 00:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I have audited all the USRD GAs from 2008 and earlier to check for serious issues like SPS use. The results are at User:Rschen7754/2008 USRD GA audit. In a week, I will start the delisting process for articles remaining on the list, but will try and spread out the delistings to give editors time to fix the affected articles. -- Rs chen 7754 02:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been informed that various "roadgeek" websites, like NYCRoads.com, AlpsRoads.net , and MichiganHighways.org, etc. are no longer considered reliable sources since they have not met the criteria for the exception to the SPS section of the verifiabilty policy.
Is there any exception to this policy, such as allowing pictures or maps from these sites?
I have also noticed that these sites are still used in dozens of articles as a reference source for various statements. Is there a reason why there are still some remaining reference sources from these sites?
Please explain if, how, and when all remaining reference sources from NYCRoads.com, AlpsRoads.net , and MichiganHighways.org would be removed.
If alternate source that provides duplicate referenced details in an article statement based on the original road geek site cannot be found, will the referenced details in specific article statements also be removed? Wondering55 ( talk) 19:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
There are proposed changes for the A-Class review for WP:HWY, to deal with situations where there are several opposes, and when the nominator has failed to respond to the comments. Your input is welcome at WT:HWY/ACR. -- Rs chen 7754 05:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I have observed that some categories mostly for interstate and U.S. Routes are disorganized. For example, some pages in Category:Interstate 95 are not in any particular order. They are somewhat scattered all over the place. Shouldn't Interstate 95 in Virginia be under the primary list? They include Interstate 95 in New York, Interstate 95 in New Hampshire, etc etc with the states in alphabetical order. Shouldn't all pages that start with Interstate 395 be under the "3"? Also, Category:Interstate 65 has two pages are under "A", which have no relevance to the two, them being Interstate 165 and Interstate 565. Thoughts on this matter? Category:U.S. Route 1 seems to be in decent shape. Tinton5 ( talk) 23:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
You're invited to help in drafting guidelines for U.S. highway items on Wikidata! The current draft guidelines are at d:WD:USRD/GL. Input is needed, so help today! - happy 5214 10:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been reformatting the List of bannered U.S. Routes page in my sandbox. I have resorted each section by location, and then by route type. I also added entries that weren't on the page. Most of those entries I got from the "Bannered routes of U.S. . . ." pages, the "U.S. Route . . ." pages, the "U.S. Route . . . in . . ." pages, or (as in the case of U.S. Route 87) Loops of U.S. Route 87 in Texas. Also, I used the 2013 Large Scale Rand McNally road atlas, Rand McNally's online mapping service, and Google Maps to find others that aren't on those Wikipedia pages. I listed some by how they are signed (for example, US 67B vice BUS US 67 in Arkansas). I want to make the pages on the actual list page, but I thought I should ask you guys first. Do you think there are any other changes I should make? Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 10:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Providing notice that I've recommended this article for demotion at ACR. -- Rs chen 7754 10:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Had a discussion with Rschen at User talk:Rschen7754#California State Route 52 et al concerning original research and ownership. Per Rschen's blanket refusal to consider either issue, I'm going to boldly edit California State Route 52. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 20:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at Missouri Route 350 to see if the recent edits are accurate or not? The editor says that is is slated to become a new US 350. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 20:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
For anyone familiar with California roads, the newly created page California Incline, says it is a road and bridge in the lead. Should it be reworded to say "road bridge" or something else? I am not 100% sure if the entire street is a bridge. Tinton5 ( talk) 23:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
If anyone can help in this CfD discussion please join in. While not restricted to the US, I'm sure someone here can provide some good guidance. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I know a lot of people have requested renames in the past on the English Wikipedia, but have not globally, or have not unified their accounts. If you have not done so, it may be a good idea to do so soon, before May 27 - otherwise it may be a huge mess to clean up aftewards. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions - I'm familiar enough with the process. -- Rs chen 7754 06:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, because Morriswa couldn't link it, I will. Mitch32( It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 00:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I would think that articles should mention maximum carrying capacity of a limited access highway. For example, at 50 mph, allowing 3 second interval and a 17 foot vehicle (arbitrary), the capacity for a single lane should be nearly 3,000 vehicles per hour. The "per hour" is important because when the editor specifies that the road carries 6,000 vehicles per hour during peak conditions, the reader might reasonably conclude that the traffic will slow to (say) 25 mph, roughly.
This should be modeled/outlined with a usable citation. Okay, this isn't a very good one: http://books.google.com/books?id=8O4Th52zjssC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=carrying+capacity+of+highways&source=bl&ots=O1gkiwnPT2&sig=hX0acaf58qSg1NOqrwKRFGJ72mA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W058UbvFJYuE9QSD24DAAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=carrying%20capacity%20of%20highways&f=false. It assumes a 1.8 second distance which seems short IMO. This one, at least, appears neutral, but is not really the ultimate available: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/29000/29200/29208/2001WZSnapshot_final_.pdf. The beauty of a real study, is it allows for correct sizing, including an average mix of larger vehicles, like trucks, and a 3 second delay between vehicles.
Unfortunately, for this project, most articles are aimed at mass transportation and are pov on road traffic, which renders them undesirable for a road article. But this is a simple calculation. "All" that needs to be done, is to find an online (for credibility) text which contains it. If I could have, I would have!
For a unlimited access (not a TP), the editor is forced to use engineers design specs or measured volume, if s/he can find them. No "mechanical" table-punching recourse as there would be for limited access roads. We would make that clear in the "outline." Student7 ( talk) 22:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Pennsylvania Route 51, 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 20:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Do we have anything anywhere that strongly urges against making more of them? I noticed this morning that they are being created en masse for Georgia, but they do not appear to be deployed as of yet. I guess my biggest problem with them is that the states that have this style of navbox (Georgia and Texas, specifically) have bigger problems than needing navboxes. – Fredddie ™ 11:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
By-county highway navboxes should die. -- Rs chen 7754 01:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Getting back on topic: The point about a link in the navbox to an article like List of state highways in Glasscock County, Texas is good; however, would not that be solved by removing such a link from the header of the navbox? The category point is good. The county article point is very good.
I admit, I am on the fence about these navboxen, so I am playing devil's advocate. It seems the consensus is pointing toward that we should deprecate these navboxen. However, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an appropriate way of supporting that. I want to see some more good reasons why these navboxen should be deprecated. I also want to see some supported examples of when similar navboxen are appropriate. V C 17:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
|counties=
parameter for that summary. Ditto a properly formatted junction list table that includes every county along the route of a specific highway.
Imzadi 1979
→ 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)So are we going to take any kind of action on these? A couple users are going around creating a bunch for Texas, and if we don't want them, we should probably act soon. T C N7JM 21:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
db-g7}}
at the top of every Georgia template that he created. But since I'm posting explicit instructions here, he won't understand what to do and we'll be forced TfD. –
Fredddie
™ 22:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there anyway that the Blue Ridge Parkway can be added to {{ Jct/doc/type/USA}}? Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 00:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Jct}}
. You'd actually have to type more with Jct. {{Jct|country=USA|Parkway|Blue Ridge}}
instead of [[Blue Ridge Parkway]]
. –
Fredddie
™ 01:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{jct|state=NC|Parkway|Blue Ridge}}
(or the "VA" version)? I know it would be more typing, but it would be formatted correctly.
Allen (Morriswa) (
talk) 01:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
jct}}
does not mean it is incorrectly formatted. It is fine as it is now.
T
C
N7JM 02:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
jct}}
template would format both the shield and link correctly for the articles that it could be used on.
Allen (Morriswa) (
talk) 12:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)I was in Washington, DC in September 2011, and I took some pictures of signs for "Interstate 395 Alternate" Here is one, and here is the other. Do any of you have any idea what that road is, any of its history, etc.? I was confused when I first saw it. Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 12:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
We've exported a concept from Australia again for the infobox. Now on named highways like the St. Joseph Valley Parkway or the Ohio Turnpike, the numerical highway designations that follow the named roadway can be notated. There are several benefits:
This is the second parameter we've added and partially implemented based on feedback from Australia. The other is |restrictions=
which has been used on
Brockway Mountain Drive and
Interstate 696 among others to note roads that have traffic restrictions. The |tourist=
parameter came from discussions with editors in New Zealand and has been used to mark major tourist routes that follow highways in the US and Canada.
Imzadi 1979
→ 23:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Going around in circles, so collapsing this. -- Rs chen 7754 03:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC) |
---|
There are lots of articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport#Roads that could be started (whether actual articles or just redirects) and incorporated into the Project. You guys are better at some of this type of thing than I am, so I am proposing (and asking nicely) that you help out. Thanks! Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 18:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Usually, when I do something that other USRD editors don't like, they get upset with me. Why didn't you say that I should have left those US 1 links red instead of making them redirect to the top of the "Bannered routes of U.S. Route 1" page (like I did)? Like I wrote to Imzadi, I plan to make the appropriate sections for some of the routes (some of the others are over my head). As I also told him, it is my opinion that all of the red links should be started as either redirects of full articles. By the way, what is defining criteria for a bannered route to be a full article (some do exist)? Maybe I could start some of them. Thank you. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 12:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
|
FWIW, all the newly created Alt US 1 redirects in CT have been re-targeted to U.S. Route 1A where there is some information already present. -- Polaron | Talk 05:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think now might be the time to act. We need to come up with a standard format for route lists—you know, those lists of all of the routes in the state, like List of Oklahoma numbered highways. Why? Because there is no reason that, with a standard, MOS-compliant format, the majority of them could not be Featured Lists, since for every state we at least have a source of length data, and most states have a history source now. With a standard format, you would just have to follow standards, build the list, send to FL, done.
Questions to discuss:
Let me know what you all think. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
No. 7 mentioned the Arizona list as what he'd like to see in a list. I agree that the state route portion of the list seems like a good starting point for a discussion on list formatting. What do other people think of the Arizona list? What should be added or removed, if anything? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I made a preliminary stab at creating these templates, using the Arizona list as a guide and adding some stuff that had been discussed above and on IRC: {{ Routelist top}}, {{ Routelist row}}, {{ Routelist bottom}}. Example:
Number | Length (mi) [2] | Length (km) | Southern or western terminus | Northern or eastern terminus | Formed | Removed | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M-36 | 36 | 58 | US 23 in Ann Arbor | M-28 in Marquette | 1912 | current | ||
SH-135 | 224 | 360 | SH-74 in Goldsby | I-40 in Webbers Falls | 2152 | current | ||
K-100 | 100 | 160 | K-99 in Emporia | Level Road in Yates Center | 1920 | Lua error in Module:Routelist_row at line 254: Type not in database: I. | 1930
||
Thoughts? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Most everything listed is done. I haven't put any cell references in yet, but that won't take much at all. Most importantly, the template is live! A couple things to note:
I just implemented it in List of Interstate Highways in Iowa. If things break, three people who want to see the list will be inconvenienced. – Fredddie ™ 05:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
|sort=
and manually specify a sort key for each row of the table, which would also allow things like 004-1 vs. 004-2 to sort the two M-4s by year of creation, streamline other suffixes, etc.
Imzadi 1979
→ 17:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Could we add a circa flag? If circa_established=yes or circa_decommissioned=yes, wrap the date output in {{ circa}} (or a subst of it), but still sort by the year. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards/Route lists—comments? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
All right, I'm going to give us some conversation starters here about some things people seem to disagree with on the proposed standard. Let's see if we can come to a consensus on them. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This is probably the big one. Should we prefer List of Interstate Highways in X or Interstate Highways in X? Should we allow U.S. Highways to substitute for U.S. Routes? Should this guideline bless any naming convention at all? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we should include county routes in this. While it's questionable that county routes deserve their own articles, I doubt even the most rabid deletionist in the project (probably me :P) opposes a mere list of them. Whether or not every state has them, I do think that when they are used, they should be standardized. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason the standard as currently proposed for state/US/Interstate routes could not be used for county routes? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Optional column for county route lists? Or shall we deprecate this? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Should we have a notes column? Some people want it, others don't like the trivia that ends up in them. Make it optional, or deprecate it? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
How do we handle routes that...
For a lot of the above, this is the perfect reason to not deprecate the notes column. These are precisely the situations that call for that column! Imzadi 1979 → 01:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've updated the standard to include a local names column and a notes column. (I will need to update the templates to support these.) It also explicitly includes county routes. What do people think of the proposed standard now? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Since this has been open nearly a month with no opposition, I'm declaring this proposal accepted and christening this a guideline. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)