Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 13

Start versus stub

It's been the common working practice at WP:USRD to designate articles that have only one of the "big three" sections (route desc, hist, jct list) as a stub class. However, there are some users challenging this on IRC. Any thoughts? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since WP:USRD/A is pretty clear that articles missing two sections are still start-class, I don't see what the issue is. -- Kéiryn ^talk 02:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"If an article is missing a "Route description," "History," or junction / exit list, it goes here." Wikilink added obviously, since you seem to have trouble with the definition of that word. -- Kéiryn ^talk 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But it's "a" - implying singular. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would have a bit of trouble missing two route description sections, now wouldn't it? -- Kéiryn ^talk 02:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Or table for Start Class criteria

RD	H	JCT	TRUE?
1	0	0	1
0	1	0	1
0	0	1	1

Q.E.D. Strato|sphere 02:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just expand them to B-Class and it won't matter. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A deliciously simple solution! Strato|sphere 02:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Or even so that it has two sections, which everyone agrees is a start. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects on CSD

I removed a few requested CSDs from an anon IP. There were for names like Soledad Freeway saying that the names were not official and should not be listed. A few extra eyes on the nominations for a while could be a good thing. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the 75.47 IP: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x --NE2 03:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment guidance for former routes

Do we need to come up with a separate set of guidelines for assessing former state highways? Obviously, it is going to be mostly history and they wouldn't need a junction list or route description. Other than a history section, what would it need? --Holderca1 ^talk 19:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, do we want to add a parameter to the infobox to list what highways replaced the highway? --Holderca1 ^talk 19:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, from what I've seen, former routes can usually be written just about the same way as normal highways. Route description gives the description of the most recent routing, or the routing when it was at its peak (e.g., if you were working on U.S. Route 66, you'd want to use the route description from before the Interstate system began taking over its routing). Junction lists are kind of iffy; in some cases they're irrelevant because the former routing was interrupted by on-the-spot upgrades or destroyed bridges. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't we get a tad bit redundant though? We are giving the route description in the lead, then in the history that goes into realignments and where it was replaced and when. I am looking at the Texas State Highway 1 article and can't really think of what can be said in the route description section that hasn't been stated already. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

On a route that's now covered by other routes, something like "routing", where you just describe it in terms of modern routes without much discussion of where it goes beyond that might be best. --NE2 21:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense, it is already in the TX 1 article, I just have to rearrange a bit. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You can use the "history=" parameter, like "history=Created in 1926; replaced by I-40 in 1985". --NE2 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've used the maint parameter for this purpose before. In M-92 (Michigan highway) I used maint= [[Michigan Department of Transportation|MDOT]] as [[M-52 (Michigan highway)|]] to show that M-92 is now M-52 even though the name_notes parameter says "Former state trunkline" --Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That only works if it's still state maintained - in which case it really should be merged with the current designation if there's only one or one primary one. --NE2 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but sometimes the subsumed designation has enough history of its own to warrant remaining unmerged in comparison to the new designation applied. It's a judgement call, but I only offered that as a suggestion for similar situations. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, in rare cases (like US 66, or where there's no one article it can be merged to). But I'd say that this is one of the places where merging does improve the articles, since the history of that section of road will be the same despite the change in number. --NE2 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But the concept I suggest also works when used as maint=[[Luce County, Michigan|]] as CR 135 as well. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What about proposed highways that received a designation but were never built? There is obviously nothing that you can redirect to. There wouldn't be much to the route description other than it was suppose to go from here to there. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's one of many in an area, an article like unconstructed freeways in the Los Angeles area might work. Otherwise you can hopefully find a planning map that shows where it would be with respect to terrain (if that is an issue with the roadway location). Be flexible; you don't need the same headers for every type of road. --NE2 17:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's just a 35-mile rural highway between two towns that was never built. [1] --Holderca1 ^talk 18:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's all you can find, and (as I'd assume) there are more like it, it's probably best to place it in a list of former or unconstructed (or former unconstructed) highways. --NE2 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving this page

Would anyone object to having the bot archive threads after they go without a reply for only 7 days (presently it's 14)? It seems like our project moves fast enough to warrant that, and our talk page gets kind of clogged up with old discussions. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No objection here. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Object, I think one week is a bit quick. The only reason we're having issues at present is because of the scope discussion. -- Kéiryn ^talk 22:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, even aside from the abnormally long scope discussion, I think that in most cases, 7–14 day old discussions aren't really relevant enough to keep from the archive. Also, the archive bot goes by date of last response, so if nobody's replied in a week, it would be archived. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I suppose you're right. (I already knew how archiving worked... I just needed to skim through the threads at the top of this page to convince me.) -- Kéiryn ^talk 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to 10d to see how that does. It will be hard to judge until that massive scope section rolls over to the archive. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Poll - an article with only one of the "big three" should be a...

Since apparently some have misinterpreted WP:USRD/A, I'm getting a straw poll. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Start

• Support. What if I don't have any citable information on the history, whatsoever? Is it to remain a stub perpetually? —Rob (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is where it's missing **two** of the big three, not one. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd still defer to personal judgment more than any criteria. No history, absurdly complicated junction list so as to not exist (yet), but an awesome route description should not mean stub. —Rob (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That's not how WP:UKRD does it... --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Seeing as how I'm not a member of WP:UKRD, and none of the articles I've worked on are part of WP:UKRD, and generally don't care all that much about WP:UKRD, I'm a bit hazy on how to find that project's guidelines. Can you point me towards their assessment scale? -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
          • There you go: Wikipedia:UKRD#B-class drive. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Curious how there's nothing in there about stub or start class that would be relevant to this discussion. I'm a moron, well hidden that. -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Okay, but oddly there's nothing in there about a route description section. Lead, infobox, junction list, history, and an NPOV thing -- and there's a note saying all of them already have infoboxes. So, yes, I'd agree if you have two of those missing, it's probably a stub. -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. We shouldn't run into situations where this is a stub, but this is a start. Stub should be reserved for an article that's solely incomprehensible lead. -- Kéiryn ^talk 02:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • We'd have an absolute standard if we went with the other option as well. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for an absolute standard. I'm saying I shouldn't be able to promote an article solely by adding a section header. -- Kéiryn ^talk 02:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But you improved the rough collection of information enough. Frequently on those sort of articles, the lead is interwoven with the RD, making it a nasty cleanup. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't improve $#*t. -- Kéiryn ^talk 02:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need an absolute standard for start vs stub?? --Holderca1 ^talk 02:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Because if we don't, then one person will assess something a start, then another will assess it a stub, and then it's time for Chuck Norris. -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't see the problem, both need work to get to "B-Class" which is the goal (I would say GA, but the queue would take 10 years or so to get them all through). --Holderca1 ^talk 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Example Washington State Route 9 is definitely NOT a stub, nor is Washington State Route 6 which is why I assessed it as such. I concede they are a ways from being a B, but that's not what we're debating Strato|sphere 02:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, my official position here if I were to have one here, would be if it has a "route description" or "history" section as its only section, than it is a start. If it just has the "junction list," then it is a stub. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Stub

• Support. Otherwise, we get a lead and a (frequently crappy) junction list, which is not a start. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Who cares?

• Support. If it has a one-sentence route description and a one-sentence history, it's a stub. If it has twenty paragraphs of description but nothing else, it's not a stub. The only reason I can see to care is for the leaderboard MMORPG. --NE2 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I really, really, really want to support that. It just doesn't work in practice. :-( -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How about treating starts and stubs the same on the leaderboard? --NE2 03:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No. They're different things, they're treated differently. A start needs less work to be "finished" than a stub. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

It depends, I consider anything more than two paragraphs of prose as a start. Emphasis on the prose. A complete junction list but only a sentence is still a stub. --Holderca1 ^talk 02:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm down with that. That's why I didn't bother reverting Washington State Route 3. That's a stub. -- Kéiryn ^talk 02:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on second glance, that's another one I could just add "==Route description==" to and get it promoted. -- Kéiryn ^talk 02:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the article itself is not a stub, does it make sense for the classification here to continue to list it as a stub? I would find that confusing. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is getting down into the weeds a bit, who cares if it is classified as a stub or start, they both need quite a bit of work before they are ready for GA. --Holderca1 ^talk 02:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment system stub-class and the tradional {{stub}} are two entirely separate things. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? --Holderca1 ^talk 03:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That was for Vegas I think, above you. Strato|sphere 03:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Compromise-ish

Somewhat stolen from Holderca1 above. Basically, remove the junction list from the big three for Start-class, but not for B-class. Maybe call them the "big three" and the "huge two". A start class article has to have at least one of the "huge two", whether or not it has a junction list is irrelevant. A B-class article still has to have all three.

• An article that has only a lead and a junction list would be a stub.
• An article that has only a lead and a route description would be a start.

-- Kéiryn ^talk 03:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Winnar Strato|sphere 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'll continue to mark articles with only a line or two of route description as stubs (unless the routes are so short that that's all that can be written). --NE2 04:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good plan. Obvious exceptions are fine. -- Kéiryn ^talk 04:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we've got all the major players from the aforementioned IRC discussion on board (except maybe Imzadi, where are you???), I'll go ahead and re-reassess the articles I did according to this criteria. If no one objects within the next 24-48 hours, I'll adjust WP:USRD/A to reflect this too. -- Kéiryn ^talk 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I second the motion. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

no objections here (from me that is) (You beat me to it Holderca1 :P)  — master son^{T - C} 13:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For those visual people out there:

History	Route description	Junction list	Class
X	X	X	B
X	X		Start
X	--	X	Start
--	X	X	Start
X			Start
	X		Start
		X	Stub
			Stub

--Holderca1 ^talk 18:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02...I don't like the proposal one bit. This is the way I've assessed articles... sorry for the repetitive table, but it's the easiest way to show.

History	Route description	Junction list	Class
X	X	X	B
X	X	--	Start
X	--	X	Start
--	X	X	Start
X	--	--	Stub
--	X	--	Stub
--	--	X	Stub
--	--	--	Stub

If the article has only one of the "big three" that's a stub to me. Now if it has all three, and their one sentence each, that doesn't exempt it from stub status either. But working under the basic model of what is a stub, start, etc., this is what I've worked under since I started working on road articles on Wikipedia. --Son (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So even if it has a full route description, it would still have to be a stub? -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If it has a full route description, but no history or no junction/major intersection list, then yes, it's still a stub. The same argument can be made if the article just had a history section, then it's a stub; also the same about just having a major intersection list. --Son (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand that at all. The junction list is a table, something that compliments an article. That would be like requiring pictures to make it a start class. But I don't think it matters, if you want to continue to rate your states projects in this matter, then go ahead. --Holderca1 ^talk 10:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, we should say that a map is required before an article is nominated for GA. --Holderca1 ^talk 12:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Who's going to enforce that? We don't have control over GA. --NE2 14:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't have control over what passes and when, and we can't stop people outside the project from nominating them without maps. But we can say as a project that we're not going to nominate them until they have maps. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And if someone does...we kick them out of the project? --NE2 15:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. </sarcasm> -- Kéiryn ^talk 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a serious question... I got Interstate 35E (Minnesota) passed a while ago without a map, and I'd do it again. --NE2 15:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how you define seriously, since you know full well that we don't have the power to kick anyone out of the project. If we decide to make this a guideline, we'd politely remind them on their talk page that it's best to wait until the article has a map, the same way we do with any of our other guidelines. I'd think that as long as a map was at least requested at the MTF, it wouldn't make any difference though. -- Kéiryn ^talk 15:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, I have never had to wait more than a day or two for a map, so if we just check the nominations every now and then and request a map for any that may be missing one. Problem solved. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We could probably get an article passed through GA without a junction list as well, so what's your point? --Holderca1 ^talk 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not like making a map is the most difficult thing in the world. Yeah, it's not exactly easy, but it just takes a some of tinkering around in your GIS program of choice. Pictures are different because they require you to get off your butt and go to the road and take pictures of it (which, although it may take some scheduling, it isn't really hard work either — we're roadgeeks, so we do that sort of thing already. Right? Right?). But making a map is just a mildly tedious bit of computer work. It's no big deal to just make a map (or bug someone else to do so) before you submit it to GA. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I used AWB to find the intersection of GA or higher and needs-map, and requested maps for those articles. --NE2 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Noting the endpoints of the article route in the junction/exit list

See Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/New York State Route 174. To me, they're unnecessary. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I tend to second this.  — master son^{T - C} 21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it can be useful for clarity, especially in the case of "useless concurrencies". See for example Oklahoma State Highway 45. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't include it. I don't even see how it is helpful in the Oklahoma example. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Situation at M-185 (Michigan highway)

This article has claimed for a while that it's the only state highway that motor vehicles are banned from. I just found another - Washington State Route 339 is a passenger-only ferry. I brought this up on the talk page and corrected the article, and it has been reverted to say that it's the only "motor-less" state highway, because - get this - the ferry has a motor (!). Am I the only one that finds this a bit ridiculous, adding conditions to make M-185 appear unique? --NE2 02:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, a ferry isn't a road, regardless of whether or not it has a state highway designation. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is a transporter bridge a road? --NE2 02:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A transporter Bridge is not a ferry  — master son^{T - C} 02:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it is...but it's closer to a ferry than to a bridge. --NE2 02:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A transporter bridge isn't a road, it's a transporter bridge. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear cut to me, both are state highways that don't allow motor vehicles. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Holderca1. There's pretty much no way around the fact that WA 339 is a state highway that doesn't allow motor vehicles. That being said, there's definitely got to be some way to word the M-185 article so that it can still keep its claim. Being the only "land highway" or somesuch that doesn't allow cars is still notable in my book. -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect WA-339 is an unsigned highway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a state highway. Perhaps that's the distinction the M-185 article could make, that it's the only signed state highway that disallows cars. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

List task force or guideline?

What is everyone's thought on creating a task force or guideline for all of our lists? Even with the leaderboard helping to improve article quality, it doesn't help out our list articles since they aren't counted in the totals. Let me know if this is a direction we want to go in and I will look at drafting something up. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Milepost malfunction

I'm starting down the road to improved mileposts, but when the Illinois Tollway (ISTHA) is involved, things get difficult.

They have provided mileposts in accordance with their system. IDOT has mileposts of their own (per GIS data). This makes identifying I-94 mileposts rather difficult. Should mileposts reflect the system the highway is a part of, or actual mileage from the border?

Another good example is Interstate 190 (Illinois), which happened to measured mileposts forwards and exit numbers backwards. Thanks guys. —Rob (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

After watching the bot archive the scope discussion, which ballooned Archive 11 to 300K and made it impossible (exaggeration) to load on my computer, I moved the scope discussion to its own archive, and lowered the max archive size to 250K. -- Kéiryn ^talk 08:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

US 89A

Utah State Route 11 has officially been changed to U.S. Route 89A, so now it spans two states: Arizona and Utah. Source: The Bill that was passed. I'm not sure what to do, but SR-11 either needs to be kept and changed to note that it is inexistent now, or just merged to US 89A and that would have to be changed as well. In any event, the latter needs to be updated. Excuse me if I posted this in the wrong location, but I posted it here since it spans two or more projects. Thanks 71.35.237.195 (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

UT SR 11 should probably be merged into US 89A, since it appears on cursory glance that the histories of the two routes are intertwined anyway. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish to be of some help in this process. What can an anon do to start the process of merging? 71.35.237.195 (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I created an account and tried to do something with the article but I have no idea how merging works. CountyLemonade (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, get all the content you need onto the page you're merging to first, noting that you're merging from the SR 11 page in the edit summary. Then, replace the page you're merging from with "#REDIRECT [[U.S. Route 89A]]" and save and voilà. See also Help:Merging and moving pages#Performing the merger. Welcome to Wikipedia, hope you enjoy your stay. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added some mergefrom and mergeto tags, and noted that U.S. Route 89A (Arizona) should be moved to U.S. Route 89A, but I have not listed it at Wikipedia:Requested moves yet because there might be a good reason for that page to exist, in spite of the lack of an associated disambiguation page. —Rob (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect deleted and page moved to U.S. Route 89A. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the easiest fix would be to move U.S. Route 89A to U.S. Route 89A in Arizona and move Utah State Route 11 to U.S. Route 89A in Utah and recreate the U.S. Route 89A article as a summary of the entire route. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the portion in Utah isn't long enough for a separate article, that doesn't seem like a good idea. --NE2 23:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It already is a separate article. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it was a separate route. --NE2 04:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NE2. We shouldn't have a state-detail article for a 3-mile long segment. Now that it's formally part of the same route, it should be part of the same article. -- Kéiryn ^talk 12:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you create Interstate 44 in Texas? When do we decide to split? It's not clear to me. --Holderca1 ^talk 12:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where the line is drawn, but I think with the Utah portion of US 89A being only 3 miles long, that's pretty obviously going to be on the "not worthy of its own article" side of the line. I think its subjective. Even if the line were drawn at 30 miles. I'd still argue that Interstate 15 in Arizona deserves its own article for its scenic value if nothing else. Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the comments above that a S-D (state detail) article would be overkill. There used to be a three-state requirement for S-D articles, but that was thrown out the window a while ago. Now it's beginning to seem like every route that crosses a state line has a S-D article, even if that segment doesn't deserve one. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've merged all needed material from SR-11 to US 89A. All that needs to be done is the merger of SR-11, but I'm waiting for consensus. CountyLemonade (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold on just a bit. I'm working on finding an official route log for the AZ portion. The former SR 11 article has one, if one can be found for AZ, let's build one before merging the articles. Also the SR11 article has a history section that needs to be moved to the US 89A article, some of this infor shouldn't be tossed. Davemeistermoab (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK I found an official milage log (although only accurate to integer mileposts. So I moved content. I think all that's left is to do the actual redirects. I think the consensus is to merge. HolderCA1 is the lone holdout. And if I understand his reasoning, its not so much he's opposed to merging. Just wants to know where is the line drawn. I don't know but I think 3 miles is on the merge side of the line. I'm going for it.Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't count me as a holdout, I was just making a suggestion that wouldn't require an admin to merge the histories. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to see that something actually got done. That brings in the question of what to do about the browsing though. Right now, the infobox on Utah State Route 10 points to SR 9 and SR 11, but there's no way to get from US 89A to SR 12. Presumably sometime soon we'll add browsing to the bottom of the US 89A article, but would that include a row for SR 11 as well? I suppose this is discussion would be better for WT:UTSH and how they want to handle former state routes, but considering it's a multi-state page... -- Kéiryn ^talk 19:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Forget having a discussion on UTSH, last time anyone talked there was on the first of February. I'm on fixing the browsing bar on SR-10 and SR-12. CountyLemonade (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Now now, be nice. 6 months ago the project was left for dead. Then I came along then some others. Within the last month 4 editors have been working hard on the project, and it shows, the number of Utah road articles has more than doubled, with 2 pending GA class articles and one pending A class article. (You, me, User:Dan_ad_nauseam and, User:Glennfcowan). I think we should have a discussion on UTSH. If all 4 of us are planning on sticking around and working on Utah highways (as opposed to we'll work on in until we're bored and then move on) we have enough to resurrect the project to a full wikiproject.Davemeistermoab (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I looked at the US 89 page, there was a browse for SR-11 included. No need to "fix" SR-10 and SR-12. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess you're right. In fact, I have some pictures that I will be uploading for a few articles. Long live UTSH! CountyLemonade (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations in the lead of an article

Per WP:LEAD#Citations and and a comment by O on NY 174's A-Class Review, I feel that we need to address the issue of citation placement, whether or not we truly should double cite, or cite within the lead. I personally haven't cited things in the lead since they're already covered in the sections below. Keeping in mind that anything about living persons are required to be cited, what should our practice be?  — master son^{T - C} 23:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In the past, I used citations in the lead, usually only for the length information. However, it was pointed out that the length is cited in both the infobox and the junction tables, so even that isn't necessary. I personally no longer use redundant citations since the lead is a summary of the sections below. It was mentioned in the M-28 ACR that the historical mentions in the lead could be challenged, but if that's the case (and they were summarized generally from the History section), then you'd have to challenge the cited information in the History section as well. I say if it's truly a summary of the contents of an article, then no cites are needed if the body is cited. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I only cite in the lead if it's something that isn't simply repeated elsewhere. --NE2 23:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I do the same as NE2 and I believe is the common practice Wikipedia wide. --Holderca1 ^talk 23:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with NE2 and Holderca1. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. -- Kéiryn ^talk 12:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I generally only apply citations to mileages (to satisfy the curiosities of someone that would ask "Now where did that number come from?") —Rob (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Concurrency color coding and Termini in Junction Lists

Per comments on NY 174's A-Class Review, where a request was followed up on to remove the colors for "concurrency" and to remove termini from the junction tables. I personally think neither one should be in there as they are redundant. This should be decided as a group though as other A-class articles still currently have these.  — master son^{T - C} 23:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO - remove all colors from them but the unbuilt colors for consistency with exit lists. The former and noaccess shading, per an earlier discussion, are already deprecated; the other three - concurrency, closed, and unbuilt - can all be expressed through other means. For the first two, it would be through notes in the notes column; for the third, it would be through the light gray shading already used in conjunction with the exit list guide. Thoughts regarding termini: article route termini should not be listed, but it should be acceptable to list intersection route termini. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree except that intersection route termini don't seem to be useful. --NE2 00:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with NE2 on the Intersection route termini - is there a purpose behind it?  — master son^{T - C} 00:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, the indication of intersecting route termini in New York predates my time on Wikipedia. Perhaps the practice derives from the junction lists on Gribblenation, where intersecting route termini are indicated with (WT), (ET), etc. To me, it's just as useful as indicating an overlap, as the termini note informs the reader that the route only continues in one direction from that intersection. The overlap notes are IMO essentially the same thing, except the notes inform the reader that the route continues in two directions from the intersection via part of the article route. Even if this logic is slightly flawed, which is possible when trying to balance basketball with wiki, I see no reason to limit or prohibit the use of intersecting route termini. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally do not care if there are colours or not. Both have their own benefits and detriments. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 00:18, 22 March 2008 (GMT)

I don't care one way or the other about the colors for concurrency, but it needs to be mentioned in the notes because not everyone can see color. --Holderca1 ^talk 01:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that there are people with colour-blindness and the usage of text-based browsers… 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 03:22, 22 March 2008 (GMT)

Too tedious to do manually. But, you could have some automatically-inserted text that's displayed as invisible for CSS-handling browsers. Then, in Lynx (and for other people that have CSS turned off/aren't able to handle it, like people with screenreaders), the CSS would degrade and the text would be visible. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

see how I handle concurrency in WI articles (WIS 29 for example) keep in mind I used the colors - which if we choose such, will go away.  — master son^{T - C} 05:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been using "west end of [route] overlap"; it's more "direction-neutral" and seems to work better for multi-route overlaps: Interstate 82#Exit list --NE2 05:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

While I've personally actually grown to like the colors, it certainly wouldn't do any harm to get rid of them. (Score that as a neutral vote.) As for the wording of the notes column, I think I've always used some variation of what NE2 said above -- now I think I just copy him outright. -- Kéiryn ^talk 12:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the colors confusing. It is now only intuitive to me to do a mouseover to get the legend only because somebody told me to do it. Had somebody not told me that I'd still be trying to figure it out. IMO, either add a legend or get rid of the colors.Davemeistermoab (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The MIint templates generate a legend at the bottom of the table, although we insert the code to close a table out without the legend on short trunklines without concurrencies. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I look at the color as more a pretty highlight. "Hey, there's something special about this junction!" so you go to the notes column to see what that is. To me, the mouseover/legend is redundant to the notes column. -- Kéiryn ^talk 17:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it, what's the problem with adding termini on junction lists? It's still a junction of the route, albeit the first/last one. CountyLemonade (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

One way or the other, they'd still be included. The question is whether or not we specify whether or not something's a terminus. -- Kéiryn ^talk 17:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression placing the termini on the major intersections list was useful, if nothing else it completes the milage log (for the ones that have mileposts). I also think that even if the consensus is remove them that they should be allowed in special cases, such as discontinuous routes, confusing concurrencies, etc.Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're both confused. No one here is proposing eliminating lines from the junction lists. The only question is whether those lines get colored, and what needs to go in the notes column.

In other words, we're always going to put the termini on the intersection list. The question is, do we also include the words "Western terminus of NJ 28" in the notes column? -- Kéiryn ^talk 18:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could always reinstate the legend into {{jctbtm}} if it's an issue (it was only eliminated to save space). We could also shrink the legend smaller, to something like this... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Legend
	Crossing, no access		Concurrency terminus
	Deleted		Unconstructed
	Closed

I say we get rid of "deleted" and "crossing, no access." If it was deleted or there is no access, it's not a major junction, so therefore it shouldn't be included in a table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CountyLemonade (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, in Oklahoma it's all (state highway) junctions, not just major ones, but I don't think those are used very much anyway. I think they arose from having something to do with California bridge logs...perhaps when Rschen gets back from Costa Rica he can enlighten us. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Per this discussion, both deleted and noaccess shouldn't be used. They've been completely phased out in New York; whether or not they have been in other states depends on that state's project. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason given for its removal, at least in New York, was deprecated. Seriously, just get rid of the colors and go to a notes-based table; it'll be better and simpler in the end. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Merged standards

For some while now, I've thought the mass of subpages containing various standards and guidelines we have was a bit cumbersome and probably outright daunting to newcomers. I took the liberty of attempting to merge them together into one master standards document at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards. What's everyone think? The majority of the page is just pure copy & paste of the various standards, and what little I did add was for cohesiveness and writing down conventions we follow that haven't been noted anywhere anyway. So far, I've merged in the "USRD MoS" and the INNA pages, along with summaries of other guidelines like the MTF guidelines and such. It could probably still use some refactoring and cohesiveness edits. Is it a good idea to have these all together? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(Note that for now, all the merged pages still exist, so if nobody likes this, we can painlessly MFD it without having to "de-merge" things.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Naming conventions" and "Linking" (which currently only deals with infoboxes) should probably be combined so the difference between the article title and the standard way to refer to the route in articles is clearer. --NE2 02:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. You can go ahead and do it or I'll get to it tomorrow morning. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally in favor of it, but I think that even with it, we should keep the old pages as well. -- Kéiryn ^talk 04:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in keeping the old pages as is if this new consolidated page is going to be the new guideline page. Granted, they can be turned into redirects to the appropriate section on the "superpage" instead of being deleted, but I don't see the purpose of keeping the old ones the same. The point of making this page was to consolidate the number of pages out there; keeping the old ones in tact sort of defeats that purpose. OTOH, I agree with the premise of the merge. As you (Scott5114) said in the outset, it needs work - for one, what's in the "linking" section only deals with junction lists, exit lists, and infoboxes. The only thing that exists anywhere as of this moment for linking elsewhere in the article is WP:USSH, but even that's not an end-all guide, since it doesn't cover abbreviations in prose at all. (And if anyone believes abbreviations shouldn't be used, then I suppose that opens that topic wide open - given the hostile and volatile nature of this page lately, I wouldn't be shocked if that ends up being the case.) --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish we could merge WP:USSH too, but that'd probably be impractical.... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this statement: "There is no set standard for junction lists, but the de facto standard is to use the {{jcttop}}, {{jctint}}, {{jctco}}, and {{jctbtm}} system of templates to create a junction table." Perhaps reword to say these are a tool to create them? I personally find it easier to use standard table formatting than use these templates. I have never liked the section header of "Major intersections" either, seems a bit ambiguous to me. Also, Pennsylvania Route 60 is not a good example, it has three separate tables that should be combined into one. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, those templates are used in Oklahoma, California, Pennsylvania, Utah, Missouri, New York, Vermont, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Montana, Kansas, Guam, Washington, Tennessee, Wyoming, and in Canada, the province of Saskatchewan. I think the only major project that doesn't use them regularly is Texas. With usage that wide, I don't see what else you could call it but a de-facto standard. That said, since it's not a set standard, you can go ahead and use whatever sort of template or table system you want. As for "major intersections", I don't like that either (the Oklahoma standard is "Junction list"), but I just copied that off the existing standard (in this case WP:USRD/MOS). Of course, if your subproject disagrees with the USRD standard, they can override it on their project page, as is their prerogative. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

California doesn't use them at all. --NE2 19:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how 20 states of 50 make a majority (and what does Canada have to do with US Roads?), but anyways, not arguing whether it is widely used or not, just saying that even by saying it is a de facto standard, newcomers would think that is what they are supposed to use. I am quite surprised that it is used that much, it bloats the article size and doesn't make it easier to make the table. It would probably help to combine all of the templates into one for starters. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of the states that don't use them don't have junction lists (or very many articles) at all. I disagree that it doesn't make it easier to make the table; I'd say that they're about equal. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what "doesn't make it easier" means... --NE2 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, so what is the advantage of using it if is equally difficult? I would use the format that is more common Wikipedia wide. The most tedious part of the junction list is the part in the "destinations" column which {{jct}} addresses. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Certain things are color-coded, which the templates have encoded. (The colors actually came from California's original infobox, which led me to believe that CA used these templates as well; I see they can't due to their milepost system.) Helps keep track of the required headings too. M-35 (Michigan highway)#Major intersections shows a usage example. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The color coding is redundant anyway since you have to mention it in the notes column as well. Also, most articles I have seen don't use a legend to tell the reader what the colors mean, and most wouldn't know to hover their mouse over the color to get the meaning. --Holderca1 ^talk 01:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a good point there - I never really understood the color coding, I seconded Holderca1's statement. Also, If there is no intersection (in the case of a former route or no interchange) leave it out. its a Junction list. Not an overpass list. — master son^{T - C} 01:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, well, that's one way of doing it that a lot of states use, so I felt it merited mentioning. If you want to draft some formal grand unified guideline for jctlists to be included here, go for it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(reset) I have just always used the ELG and changed the "destinations" to a "junction" column, no need to reinvent the wheel. --Holderca1 ^talk 02:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of having all of a project's guidelines in one place, it's like the Editing Guide I set up for MDRD. Also, just to throw in my two cents on a couple of the other things discussed here, Maryland uses "Junction list" as an alternative to "Major intersections" as well. We also have always based the table in said section on WP:ELG. Personally, I never saw the point in having separate tables in different formats for freeway and non-freeway portions; consistency is better, but I suppose that's for another discussion.-Jeff ^(talk) 04:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to my redirecting all standards subpages to the Standards? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any objections as long as the subpages are redirected to the appropriate section and the shortcut boxes are moved to those sections (like at WP:MOS#Punctuation). --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I've done:

• Redirected all pages to the appropriate section of the Standards page.
• Redirected all shortcuts to the appropriate section of the Standards page. I put a shortcut box for the what the MOS page became, but not the INNA standards, because, frankly, WP:USRD/INNA/I doesn't make much sense as a redirect anymore. (It still works, though, so people snooping in archives can click that and still be taken to it.
• Created a shortcut for the standards page, at WP:USRD/STDS. See, "std" is a C/C++/Unix convention meaning "standard" — oh ha ha ha grow up it's not funny.
• Moved the INNA talk pages to archive subpages of WT:USRD/STDS.
• About to edit the USRD box to remove references to those pages and replace them

All right, so we're all merged up and centralized now, unless there's any other standards pages that I don't know about that should be merged in. What do y'all think about merging WP:USRD/NT in? I created a sort of stub section for it, but would it be overwhelming to merge the actual page in too? (We should probably retool those guidelines a bit either way...)—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we want to kill INNA?

While we're clearing out junk, do we want to kill off INNA? It'd probably be better for actual discussion to take place either here or at the standards page, and having an actual subproject for infoboxes and navigation seems kind of baroque. Should we MFD it and move the talk page someplace or just tag it inactive and quit linking to it? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Michigan Trunklines

Please help settle a dispute over what the article should be titled. The discussion is at Talk:List of Michigan trunklines. Thanks~ Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Dispute" is perhaps not quite accurate. More like a request for clarification. older ≠ wiser 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with the above. Not everything USRD discusses needs to automatically be classified as a "dispute", and reposting like this is borderline uncivil. -- Kéiryn ^talk 17:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed at WP:MISH? --Holderca1 ^talk 17:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Originally I would have said yes, but seeing as how someone brought up a USRD guideline that I'm not sure exists, it might be worth taking up as a national project. -- Kéiryn ^talk 18:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrong-way concurrency --NE2 23:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Colorado State Highway 29

Does it really exist? It is listed on List of Colorado State Highways and also appears in my Rand McNally atlas but the Colorado Department of Transportation website claims to have no record of any state highway 29. Is this just an omission on the CDOT website? Has the highway been renumbered? My atlas is nearly ten years old so it may be out of date. Does anyone have any information about this? OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 22:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Route 29 is gone as of October 2007. This unreliable source says that it was replaced with Route 21. That's the only source unfortunately. Hopefully that answers your problem.^Mitch32^contribs 22:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It still shows up on Google Maps. --Holderca1 ^talk 23:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, folks. CDOT's website confirms that there is a SH 21 that covers much of the ground that used to be SH 29 but the routes do not appear to be identical; for one thing SH 21 is five times as long as SH 29 was said to be. That's proof enough for me to update the List of Colorado State Highways by removing SH 29 and adding a placeholder for SH 21. Only trouble is, there's no shield for SH 21. I'm going to request one. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

SH 29 should still be listed as a former state highway. Our coverage doesn't stop at active routes. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 11:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 14:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What point does a "list of minor state routes in XXX" serve?

There is a discussion on Talk:List of minor state routes in Utah about this. While it really only involves WP:UTSH, as the project only has a few members input from interested parties would help reach a consensus.Davemeistermoab (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ferries

I see that NE2 has tagged a few ferry articles with the USRD template. Presumably, this is because they connect sections of state highway. I'm not sure that logic really flies with me though — road projects simply aren't going to have the sources and interested editor groups to deal with ferries. The same sort of arguments that have been bandied about against including city streets also apply to ferries, but even more so, considering ferries aren't even roads, but instead are boats. Boats have things like propellers and engines and smokestacks and other stuff that roads don't have. Including ferries in the road wikiproject is forcing a square peg into a round hole. Also, we don't include road bridges that carry numbered highways (because there's a project just for bridges), so why should we include ferries (WikiProject Ships maintains those)? Note that Keller Ferry is tagged as needing a ship infobox. What possible good could someone with a road background like those of us here, used to dealing with maps, lengths, and exit lists, do for an article about a boat? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually those ferries are legally part of the state highway system; the Keller Ferry was taken over by the state in 1930, and the Washington State Ferries were taken over in 1951, with the intent on phasing them out after new cross-Puget Sound bridges were built (which never happened). And we do include bridges, such as the Pulaski Skyway and Alaskan Way Viaduct. --NE2 08:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Talk:Alaska Marine Highway has been tagged since December with no objections, despite two non-NE2 USRD editors assessing it. --NE2 09:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's legally part of the state highway system, but it's still more of a boat than a road. I'm guessing the majority of us here don't have any sort of us here don't have any sort of marine or naval background, so tagging them as USRD is unhelpful. As we lack the expertise for dealing with ships, there's no benefit to anyone to include them. (Bridges are sort of a tricky matter that should be discussed sometime in the future, because a line needs to be drawn, things like Pulaski Skyway and the Waldvogel Viaduct get included because they're highways in their own right, but mere connecting bridges like the Bay Bridge, Golden Gate, the Paseo and the Nance aren't, and so the bridges project can deal with those more effectively. That's a totally different discussion though.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Filing under who really cares? Like I have said in the past, work on the articles you want to work on, don't work on the articles you don't want to work on. Everyone will be happier that way. Articles are allowed to be tagged by multiple projects and just because it is tagged by USRD, doesn't mean that USRD is responsible for writing the entire article. The WikiProject tags are there to help editors of that article get help from others. Since it is part of the state highway system and an editor needs input on the state highway system, then they would come here. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Who really cares" is not a good argument. Obviously, I do, and NE2 does, and you apparently do enough to post. "Don't work on the articles you don't want to work on" is similarly a bad argument, because I could just turn it around and say if you wanted to work on it, you could do still so without it being tagged under USRD. Yes, articles are allowed to be tagged as belonging to multiple projects. But only when it makes sense. I don't think it makes any sense at all to include a boat in a road project, regardless of whether it has a state highway number assigned to it or not. And seriously, it being part of the state highway system doesn't change the fact that it's not a road, it's a ship. As I said above, tagging as part of USRD isn't really helpful to anyone, because most USRD editors lack expertise when it comes to ships. The only state highway information included in the ferry article would be to merely note that it is part of SR-whatever and possibly to note that it's part of the state highway system. I doubt any of us could add anything other than that that wouldn't just be redundant to the main SR article. In fact, I highly doubt any of us — excepting possibly yourself — could improve it at all beyond that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd be wrong: [2] --NE2 14:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Only one sentence in that paper is relevant to being part of State Route 21. The rest is about the boat itself or the route it takes. As I said, the relevance to this project is negligible. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong about "I highly doubt any of us — excepting possibly yourself — could improve it at all beyond that." since there's a nice reliable source here. Note how it's listed under "highway maintenance" on [3]. --NE2 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a reliable source regarding TCP/IP. That doesn't mean I should edit that article. More likely, I'd make it worse. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I just remember how the last scope discussion went. But if you like discussing ad nauseum over it, have at it. I don't have any expertise in roads, my degree is something totally unrelated, but I still manage to write about roads. I find most of my sources through Google and Google News, which I believe most people are capable of. USRD editors don't have to write about the ship part, but writing about why it is a part of the state highway system is something we can write about. I am hoping that our editors are writing articles based on reliable sources and not just personal experiences. I have never been to a lot of the roads that I have written about, but it doesn't prevent me from writing about them. I also find it insulting to the editors of this project to basically have no faith in their abilities to write articles on anything but roads. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop thinking like the editors of this wikiproject are the only people in the world. Have you not thought about the fact that it might interest other editors, new editors. It might be something for you all to consider setting up a US transport wikiproject to stop all of these pointless arguments. That way anything that doesn't conform can just be lobbed in there. I realise this isnt really a constructive argument but that never seems to get anywhere anyway. Seddon69 (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Work on the road-related information regarding the ferry, and add as your experience allows. Problem solved. See S.S. Badger (US 10). —Rob (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But S.S. Badger is not tagged under MSHP. It's tagged under WP:WI and WP:MI. MDOT considers US 10 to end at the entrance to the parking lot for the carferry. (They even posted US 10 ENDS signage there.) For that reason, as well as the fact that the MSHP project scope doesn't recognize things not numbered by MDOT, it's outside of the MSHP scope at this time. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly the most active of articles (except for a certain incident about 2 years ago.) For all intents and purposes, and to most casual observers, U.S. 10 is connected by this ferry. Is there much to say about it? Not really... but it is mentioned, and a map is included for illustration purposes. —Rob (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the point some of us want to make is simple:

Image:SSBadger050219.jpg is a boat.

Image:M-28 Trout Creek.jpg is a road.

[4] shows the "end" of US 10 under MDOT maintenance, complete with a sign and the S.S. Spartan in the background. The Spartan is the sister ship to the Badger and permanently docked in Ludington. The infobox requested for the article is {{infobox ship}}. The ferry isn't run by either state, it's a private company that operates it. For all practical purposes, US 10 is discontinuous. The Badger only connects the two segments, and at one time docked in a different port in Wisconsin other than Manitowac, and US 10 was not routed there. In fact, US 10 ended in Manitowac and the Badger docked in Kewaunee, WI Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason NOT to include ferries that connect routes (such as US 10/S.S. Badger, NC 12/multiple outer banks ferries and [U.S. Route 9|US 9]]/Cape_May-Lewes_Ferry as they do connect the routes accross water. The routes may be discontinuous, but they are one (FYI - Wisconsin has no "END US 10" sign - they just point to the ferry.) Also see the main US 10 route article.  — master son^{T - C} 23:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Because ferries ≠ roads. Nobody has even attempted to refute this argument yet. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably because this isn't that important of a discussion and we all wasted too much time on it last time. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we still have a list of long-distance control cities?

I think it was deleted, but if not: [5] is about 357 miles to San Francisco and 255 to Reno. --NE2 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of long-distance mileage signs in the United States -- Kéiryn ^talk 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me of Streets and highways of Chicago#Driving distances. I'm going to get around to bringing that section up for deletion someday... —Rob (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment criteria

I feel that the prior discussion we had on the stub vs. start issue sort of petered out before we reached a formal conclusion. I think we have changed our "working practice" to match that of the compromise, but since there were a couple of objections, we never formalized it by changing WP:USRD/A to reflect that.

I've created a list of standards at User:Kéiryn/USRD Assessment that I'd like to either work into the current chart of guidelines, or just move into the project namespace as a subpage of WP:USRD/A to supplement that chart. Any thoughts on how to tweak or expand it would be much appreciated. -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Only issue I have is with the stub classification - an article with only lead has serious issues and should be Stub. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was what I had said, but I think I made a typo. Does this fix your issue? -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah now it's fine. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration case is over

The arbitration case is over.

I'm hoping to bring up some of the stuff proposed in my manifesto a few months ago within the next few days, once stuff within my life settles down. (Some of you are probably going "wait... what manifesto?" :)) --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not going "wait, what manifesto?", you posted it either right before or right around the time I came back on-wiki, so I'll have to give it a thorough reading that I didn't before. I'm looking forward to reading it, and perhaps writing my own. I think – as a project – we need to put some things behind us, and learn how to discuss things more rationally, maturely, and completely (that is, making sure we actually reach a conclusion/consensus). -- Kéiryn ^talk 04:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754/Manifesto I think. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jctint colors

Legend
	Crossing, no access		Concurrency terminus
	Deleted		Unconstructed
	Closed

All the colors go by conventialy. Orange=noaccess, light blue=concur, gray=delete, tan=unbuilt, and pale yellow=close. Anyways I don't care that much of the colours in sense of WP:DEW just as long as they follow WP:MOS is fine. Junction list ({{Jctint}})is not exit list so those colors there is fine. Some pages like I-378 uses both junction and exit lists so is better to merge the junction list into exit list. Exit list is different anyways. Concur, and short term closure you do not add any background colors; noaccesss or intersections has not yet met the construction phase does not belong on exit list per needs reliable source. The intersection in middle of construction or long-term closure can be shade in light gray color only. Delete route should use curent name like Rosemead Blvd. the intersection coloum on note you can say like "Former SR 164" but don't include the icon, and not background color for that. If you want to eliminate those colours the you have to switch the whole thing into Exit list format. That's tough to do. --Freewayguy (Webmail) 17:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyways alot of articles from numerous states ex. SC, NJ, MI, OK, IN, OH, is using {{Jctint}}. I don't know about changing it to this template:

{| class=wikitable
!County
!Location
!Mile
![[Exit number|#]]
!Destinations
!Notes
|-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|}

California has been changing from to Normal exit list format like California State Route 39 because most routes have leftover segments after 1964 great number change, where the alignments is remove like SR 212 no longer exits after 1964. Most of them change to different numbers like US-91 became SR 91. Part of I-405 use to be SR 7, qnd part of I-605 use to be SR 243.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 17:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The colors usually explain to most people of "Who cares?" Even I don't care that much just as long as they don't look too sloppy.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep those colours. Is not like we nade so many changes in colours, escept we made cyan lighter shade and unbuilt change to green and tan because colours is not need to be that dark. The colours is fine, and nobody actually cares about colours. Is not going to harm to actually keep those colours when it draw people so little interest.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We didnt change much colors; only unbuilt the most-purple to green to tan, there is nothing wrong with it.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/New article notes

What is this supposed to be? --NE2 08:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems kind of baffling, considering it's User:TOWNE 466's only edit. I'm frankly not sure what it is or what to do with it right now. Just deleting it seems a little WP:BITE-y... let's wait a bit and see what (if anything) that user has planned for it. (I am a little suspicious of someone's first edit being to make a new project space subpage, however...most new users don't know about either project space or subpages when they start off. But we'll see.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been in the template since it was created in September 2007. It wasn't on the previous version of WP:USRD, so it looks like Master son added it. I'll ask him to comment here. --NE2 14:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted a message on User_talk:TOWNE 466 asking him to respond on this talk page and explain. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I left that in there when I copied the template from Trains WikiProject, I never removed it because I figured it might have been useful. Didn't know it would come to this. :( I would also say that we should wait for a response, then if none, delete the page and the links to it.  — master son^{T - C} 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh, now I remember. Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/New article notes was created because the pages in Category:Needed-Class rail transport articles, some of which included notes, were being deleted. --NE2 03:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone object to removing it from the template? --NE2 11:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say lose it.  — master son^{T - C} 11:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sent to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/New article notes. -- Kéiryn ^talk 21:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

BIA routes

Do we have any articles on the BIA routes? They are maintained by the US government, so I think they would fall under the scope of USRD. Is there enough information out there to create any articles on them? Perhaps just a list article of them? --Holderca1 ^talk 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We probably should have articles or at the very least a list on them, but they all happen to be in states like Arizona and New Mexico that don't have any active editors. (Maybe Utah. Not sure ­— Dave, are you about?) I don't know very much about them (Oklahoma doesn't have any. Isn't that weird?) so I can't really comment more on the issue other than to say we should definitely cover them in some fashion. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am actively working on Arizona, that is how I came across them. I didn't know whether to include them in junction lists or link them in articles. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably treat them the same way we treat CRs, meaning go ahead and link to them, we'll merge the non-notable ones to a list (with redirects) and have articles on the notable ones. Do you happen to know if the numbers are unique, if they're unique within a state but are duplicated between states, or are duplicated all the damn time? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a clue, I just found one instance of one keeping the same number as it crosses a state line [6]. I would think they would be unique since they are managed at the federal level and wouldn't duplicate between states, but you never know. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, on second thought, I found this [7], I would be willing to bet they are unique by reservation though. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Numbers are reused: [8] We have two BIA shields, only used on US 163 and Numbered highways in the United States. --NE2 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Found an inventory! [9] --Holderca1 ^talk 00:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty daunting list, I think we need to set up some kind of subpage to come up with a naming convention, which ones are notable enough to have a separate article, etc... ADT is provided for some and I saw a couple with over 20K ADT, that would be notable enough in my book for an article. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can laugh at myself, the inventory is a listing of all routes that go through an Indian Reservation, I was looking at the ADT of I-25 in New Mexico. --Holderca1 ^talk 01:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How about 1 or 2 in the "CLS" field (page 2 of [10])? --NE2 03:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it appears most of the class 1 roads are state maintained routes and already have articles, but there are a few that aren't. --Holderca1 ^talk 12:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[11] is a list of reservations by number and should help decode the data. --NE2 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First things first, we need an article written on the system. Then, once we understand how it works, it'll be easier to write on individual routes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think first we need to understand the system, then we need to write an article on it. :-P -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the mile logs on UDOT's web site mention BIA routes as "Fed Aid Route XXXX", which is the same term UDOT uses for county maintained routes. Sorry for not chiming in sooner. For an example of one, look at U.S. Route 163 and the UDOT mile log used as a source for the major intersections list. Anything south of the town of Mexican Hat is on the Navajo Nation and would be BIA/Navajo roads, anything north of Mexican hat would refer to San Juan County. Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion debate (Minnesota county route)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Louis County Road 7 --Polaron | Talk 16:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Another: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nebraska Spur 10A --NE2 16:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick GA notes

Looks like U.S. Route 12 in Washington is the 100th road-transport related GA article (plus or minus an article). Congrats to all transport editors on that milestone.

Secondly, the backlog is down to 9 days and 10 articles (7 unreviewed, 1 really needs a second opinion). Ideally I'd like to review 5 articles per week, and have the maximum unreviewed time be 7 days. I encourage other editors to hold other people's articles up to established good article guidelines and comment on how to improve them. It helps your own edits to mainspace articles. Really. —Rob (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/States

First off, apologies for imposing a unilateral change after discussion on IRC. Gee, how many times have I yelled at other people for doing that? However, this change is relatively minor, and solely behind the scenes, so hopefully it isn't too big a deal. Secondly, apologies for waiting two days before posting this here.

Thirdly, what is the change? Basically, starting immediately, the "leaderboard" will only be updated once a week, by me. Generally this will be either Friday late afternoon or early Saturday morning (Pacific), although these first two weeks it will probably be sometime on Sunday. In my eyes, there are three reasons for this change:

• It's a choice between 30-40 minutes of work, or a couple of minutes whenever the bot automatically updates the state pages (sometimes multiple times a day). It's debatable which way is more work, but since Rschen was getting tired of doing it the second way, I volunteered to do it the first way.
• To the extent the leaderboard MMORPG exists (as it was cleverly referred to once), not updating the leaderboard constantly will help to reduce the focus on that.
• To the extent it doesn't exist, it will reduce the illusion that it does.

I'm not going to get into the business of reverting people who update individual states during the week. However, I'd like to encourage people to stop doing this. Firstly, it somewhat defeats the purpose of combining all the intermediate edits into one edit at the end of the week. Secondly, while updating all the states at once at the end of the week makes the list slightly less up-to-date, it does make it so that there's a more accurate comparison – that is, it ensures that all the states are equally up-to-date. If someone from a state project wants to look at perfectly up-to-date statistics, they can instead look at their individual state page (for example: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Alabama road transport articles by quality statistics). -- Kéiryn ^talk 01:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is MMORPG? I see RPG and I think rocket-propelled grenade, but I couldn't figure out the first part. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Massive multiplayer online role-playing game. - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this has to do with a video game, but no es importante. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a phrase NE2 used once and I found humorous. Basically it refers to how certain editors are competing with each other, and possibly "cheating" by hiding their stubs. -- Kéiryn ^talk 20:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Competition is a good thing. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A good-quality encyclopedia is a good thing. Competition is only a good thing if it helps us reach that goal. Removing stubs in ways other than improving them often doesn't do that. --NE2 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, changing how often the leaderboard is updated isn't going to effect how editors handle their stubs. --Holderca1 ^talk 23:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It might, it might not. Ideally, editors make editorial decisions because it's good for the encyclopedia – not just to up their project's stats. However, some editors have come right out and said that this was their reason for questionable merges or other proposals. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't realize some editors would throw integrity out the window like that. That would be like me improving all the current New Mexico highway articles to B-class (which wouldn't be too hard considering there are only 47), then go around tooting my own horn for having NM at #1 despite the fact that NM would have several hundred highway articles without an article to speak of. This rating system is a bit flawed in that respect, was this created by USRD or was this created at a Wikipedia level? --Holderca1 ^talk 15:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the formulas were developed at a Wikipedia level. I mentioned the issue that you bring up at IRC (or someone else mentioned it and I agreed), but I think the problem with implementing something like that is that it's tough to tell exactly how many articles are missing. Plus, even if you could, you can't put nonexistent articles in a category for a bot to count the way we do with the various classes. -- Kéiryn ^talk 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

One easy way of counting how many missing articles there are is to look at how many red links there are in the list articles (under the assumption that the lists are complete). It's admittedly not perfect but should give a rough idea. I used to do the tabulation prior to the automatic bot counts at WP:USRD/SUB/STATS. --Polaron | Talk 16:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That was my thought on IRC. The two problems I could see with that are (1) assuming the lists are complete might be a pretty big assumption for some states – especially if we wanted to count former routes – and (2) it doesn't take into account any non-state highway articles that are missing. Still, it could be an okay solution if it were something we wanted to implement. -- Kéiryn ^talk 16:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Another problem I could forsee is if a redirect was created and not counting it properly. I would only count the active main line routes that are missing an article for the number of unwritten articles counting towards wikiwork. Another problem I could see with implementing this is that I would imagine unwritten articles would count as a 6 towards wikiwork. The problem would be that someone may make a bunch of stubs just to lower their work a bit. To counteract that, we may just want to count unwritten articles as a 5 towards wikiwork to prevent this from happening. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree with that. A stub, provided it's more than just a sentence or two (and still maybe even if it is just a sentence or two), is better than nothing, and should be treated as such. -- Kéiryn ^talk 17:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am okay either way, I was just throwing it out there. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Including missing articles in wikiwork?

What do people think of the proposal above to include missing state highway articles in a state project's wikiwork? After giving it some thought, I've realized that it wouldn't actually be terribly hard for me to implement if it gains consensus, so I figured I'd pose the question in a new section down here to see if it gains consensus... -- Kéiryn ^talk 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If we can develop a good method for implementing it, sure. The problem is, how do we determine what's missing except assuming the lists are complete. For instance, Michigan has started articles/DABs/redirects on all known M-## state trunkllines. The only missing articles would be on the state-level US Highways and Interstates, most of which currently just redirect to the parent article until the article is written. Are these articles truly missing then? I see the merits of the proposal. Guam has many, many more highways than currently written, but the only one done is a B, so Guam is at 3.000. Should it be at the top of the heap on that reasoning, not quite, but I don't know that there is a simple method to use to determine missing articles. There has never been an M-2 in Michigan, odd enough, but someone could say that it's "missing". Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we would only count the active main lines highways, which I believe all should have their own article. I think it is okay to bunch former highways into a list article and for those that have the info available, break out the separate article. A lot of the former highways will never have their own article since they currently exist as another designation and would be covered under that article. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think including unwritten articles in the statistics would get unworkably messy, because it's difficult to determine what's "needed" and what's not. In Oklahoma, lettered spur routes don't have their own articles, they're merged to the parents. Of course, if new members joined OKSH and we collectively decided that was a bad practice, then we'd suddenly have a lot more N-Class (my neologism of choice for unwritten articles) articles to tackle. Also, there's quite a few decommissioned highways from the 20th century that need to be investigated and articles written on, but that's going to be down the road once our coverage of the current system is more complete. And then there's county routes, which add a whole other order of complexity to the problem. And then city streets add another layer of possible articles. Unless we were to sit down as a project and list out every article that could possibly be written and say "okay, if it's not on this list, it's not going to get written" (which would be impossible anyway because everyone would argue over what's notable or not), the number of articles we could write is a few dozen short of infinite.

Also, I feel that the present system places more weight on expanding and improving existing articles more than writing new articles, and this is the way it should be. We have to realize that Wikipedia isn't just a fun writing club; people do use our articles, and in the process of expanding them to B-Class, we catch inaccuracies, clean up grammar, tune prose, correct MOS and USRD standard violations, and much more. If a visitor were to happen to be searching for information on some highway and happen upon an unchecked, badly written article, it reflects badly upon Wikipedia. And as they used to say at my last job, "shit rolls downhill", and so it reflects badly on Wikipedia as a whole. While some people enjoy writing articles from scratch and should not be barred from that endeavor, we have a lot of articles that need to be fixed, and those need to be higher priority than new articles. I also dispute the previous assertion that "stubs are better than nothing": a stub with wrong information is worse than nothing because it tarnishes our reliability as a project. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That is why I said we should limit to the active primary state highways (this doesn't include spurs, business routes, etc...). I think we can all agree that they should all have their own article. There are several states that hardly have any of them created, New Mexico, Wyoming and Idaho just being a few examples. This change would probably be invisible to most states since they already have at least a stub created for every active primary state highway. I also don't think this is being proposed as part of a "game" by any stretch. I personnally think being comprehensive is just as important as the quality of the articles. I think someone searching for a particular article and not finding it at all is just as bad as finding a poorly written article. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I totally agree that it would be impossible to write a list of every single "needed" article. But I think it would be exceedingly simple to write a list of the "most needed" articles – that is, current mainline (primary) state highways. Undoubtedly this would leave off some, so it still wouldn't be a 100% accurate measure of the wikiwork we have remaining, but it would still be a hell of a lot more accurate than the system we have now.

Secondary state highways, county highways, and OK's suffixed spurs (and a bunch of other categories I can't think of off the top of my head) generally don't get articles for individual routes. Therefore, they shouldn't be part of the wikiwork – they fall into the List- or Redirect-class assessment categories. There are, of course, going to be a rare few that do need their own articles, and those will be added to the wikiwork when someone writes a stub (or a start or a B...) and they get sorted into the assessment categories. In other words, saying that they're not on "this list" doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't going to get written, just that writing them isn't as high priority as it is to write the ones that do make the list – or to paraphrase something you said, we'll write them down the road sometime once our coverage of the more important highways is more complete.

Also, as you might be able to tell, I'm not quite so sure that the focus should be on expanding/perfecting existing articles instead of writing new articles. I think both aspects are equally important. Imagine Holderca's New Mexico example in the above section. Considering that New Mexico has over 400 state highways, I think 48 B-class articles and a relative wikiwork of 3.000 would be pretty sucky. Whereas if we could get articles on all 400 of them and a wikiwork of around 4.5, that would be pretty dang awesome in my book. If a visitor happens upon an unchecked, badly written article, that probably reflects pretty badly on us, but if they can't find anything at all, I think that reflects even worse on us. -- Kéiryn ^talk 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Finding an incorrect article is unquestionably worse than not finding one at all. If an article is missing, then the user will just look somewhere else, but if a short, badly spelled article is found, that reflects badly on Wikipedia (not USRD, Wikipedia) and the person is less likely to turn to Wikipedia for information in the future. (And if nobody's going to read these, why are we writing them?) Also, if an unchecked article is downright wrong, we're giving bad information to readers, which is obviously bad. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a vaild point. I do agree that incorrect information is worse than none at all. However, to be perfectly honest, I've rarely found blatantly incorrect information in our project. Sometimes, sure, but not often. (I of course concede that it's entirely possible you've had a different experience.)

But really, it's kind of a moot point. The people who pay attention to the assessment statistics (i.e. you and me) aren't the type of editors who are going to add incorrect information to Wikipedia. They're the type of people who will go, "Oh, $#*t, there are that many articles missing?!?", and go and create a few. The writing might be short and imperfect, but I'm confident that the information added by these editors would be 100% correct. And while it might be a little ugly, it would be better than nothing. -- Kéiryn ^talk 20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. When I notice that my projects' statistics go up due to a new stub being added, that sets my Danger Flag off, and I go check and see what was added so as to verify it. I'm concerned about people going off on a stub-writing bender, because it leads to having a bunch of new poor-quality articles rushed through just to change redlinks to blue. (This has already happened in Pennsylvania.) Also, these types of new article sprees sets us off on sort of a J-curve where we grow faster than other editors can keep up with checking. We should stick to a more regulated S-curve growth plan, so we don't have the feeling of being overwhelmed, backlogged, and biting off more than we can chew.

I don't object to coming up with a tally of how many articles are needed. However, I don't think it should be tied into WikiWork. With the present system, there is some disincentive to making new stubs. But for most projects, the same statistics give an incentive to write new articles, but improve them to B-Class before they hit the mainspace. I have no objections to people making new articles in most cases (I'm not too fond of CRs and city streets), just new stubs. To sort of steal from Stephen Colbert, if you write it good enough the first time, you don't need to go over it a second. :-) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be an S-curve regardless, it's just a question of when we go up, and when we start to level off. Eventually, we're going to need to create those articles if we're trying to make a thorough encyclopedia on state highways in the United States. So really, they already are a part of our wikiwork – meaning the work we have to do – just not the way we've chosen to measure it. -- Kéiryn ^talk 04:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion that may be related at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 14#Category:Needed-Class articles. --NE2 20:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The weak consensus there so far seems to be keep, which is good. Although I was thinking it would be pretty easy to do without a category, and without running afoul of CSD. Basically, I'd make a list of all the redlinks off the various state highway list pages, put it on a user subpage or a subpage of this project, and once a week when I update WP:USRD/A/S, I'd see which ones have turned blue. -- Kéiryn ^talk 21:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I tested an article in Washington and WP 1.0 bot doesn't include needed-class articles in the stats, so it would be seeing how big the category is. --NE2 21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bold text in articles and MOS:BOLD

After helping to knock down the Transportation backlog at WP:GAN to 15 days and 14 articles (as opposed to, oh, 40+ days and 33 articles), I would like to point out that the Wikipedia Manual of Style discourages bold text in any section other than the lead.

For emphasis, use italics. Otherwise, limit boldface use to table headers, definition lists, and volume numbers of journal articles, per MOS:BOLD. However, if the project members would like to vet using boldface in the History sections of articles for the names of former routes, that should be taken up both within the project, and with other members of the Wikipedia community. —Rob (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The way I read it though, MOS:BOLD and WP:Redirect are a little contradictory. For example, there is a disambiguation page for M-111 (Michigan highway). From it, M-111 (1928 Michigan highway) and M-111 (1938 Michigan highway) branch off, the first is a redirect to the M-111 subsection of M-47 (Michigan highway) and the second is a redirect to the M-111 subsection of M-26 (Michigan highway). From WP:Redirect: "We follow the 'principle of least astonishment' — after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: 'hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?'. Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place." If only a small portion of the article that's not worth mentioning in the LEAD deals with the redirect, then why shouldn't the subsection have the first mention of the redirected subject in boldface? Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the redirect should go directly to the section with the first mention and that should be bolded. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In both M-47 and M-26 in the example above, there is a subheading under History for M-111. That's the section where it redirects, that's the section with the first mention and that's the section where it is bolded. 23:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's necessary here (looking at M-47), given that the section header reads "M-111". But it would probably make more sense not to have the separate section, and instead cover M-111 in the early part of M-47's history. Right now the article talks about M-47 being extended over M-111, continues on about M-47, and then goes back to M-111 before it became part of M-47. --NE2 00:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In a comprehensive lead, technically the historical routes would be mentioned in the historical section of the lead. I think it would be proper to link to the article, and then bold the historical routes when briefly mentioned in the lead. —Rob (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. On something like US 491, it makes sense to mention that it was US 666, but in many cases the former designations really weren't that important. The Historic Columbia River Highway No. 100 was put together in 1993 from the Crown Point Highway No. 125, Cascade Locks Highway No. 283, Old Columbia River Drive No. 284, and portions of several others - should that all be bolded in the lead? --NE2 03:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a legitimate concern. Would you argue for the routes to be bolded in the History section, then, or to not be bolded at all? —Rob (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I'd bold them in the history at the time they were formed (when the Columbia River Highway No. 2 was realigned), which would be a different paragraph for each. --NE2 04:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that convention. I've posted at the MOS talk page and will wait a few days for concerns to crop up. If none appear, I'll write it into the project MOS. —Rob (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I was told to take out the bolding for just such an instance where I had done this on Interstate 70 in Utah. The reviewer who made this comment was User:SandyGeorgia who is the assistant FA director, so I think she speaks with experience on this subject. The specific instance was State Route 4 where Utah State Route 4 redirects to I-70 in UT with the first mention of why in the history section.Dave (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd point that user to this discussion and/or the last section on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting). Like Imzadi said above, by removing the boldface we run the very real risk of leaving readers thinking "why was I redirected here". – TMF 03:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Another concern I have is that, especially in New York, some former designations (ones that are bolded in articles) have since been reused. My fear is that if they are debolded then other editors will incorrectly link these designations to their current numerical counterpart. – TMF 03:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Interstate issues again.........

So Algorhythm went ahead and ask undeletion of numerous state-name interstates from maryland. However on interstate-guide they color Maryland black, means is mostly neutral shields. I guess it can be a mix-shields state or should be pink-purple (magenta). Oklahoma should be blue becasue the state documents requires state-name-interstate shields, and California requires state-name shields on interstates per Caltrans sign drawing. However Oklahoma's DOT defies over legislation more than anywhere in the US, and sometimes US makes black background or make in blue, or purple with white text besides interstates issue. Caltrans I think is the best in the US, and they generally follows the DOT rubrics. Only in Central Valley the i-5 missing state name on interstate shields maybe becasue the Modesto districts defies more, in the later 1990s. ODOT I thought is the most defiant DOT over all U.S. --Freewayguy (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I requested undeletion of those shields is that although the map you keep citing is correct in that the Maryland State Highway Administration specifies shields without the state name, the state name shields have been used in the past and are thus of historical interest, even though they are no longer the official design. No offense was intended, and you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill out of this. - Algorerhythms (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

→→→It does not matter whether state name shields are used or not.←←← Honestly, I'm getting quite tired of this. Maybe we should go back to using only the national (neutered) MUTCD shields so that we don't have to discuss this endlessly. It would make things more consistent, anyway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, to be honest. - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If a project has reached a consensus that you cannot convince that project to change, then you should respect that consensus. Also, I don't see the point in not having state-name shields for a state that no longer uses them. We have an Interstate 0 shield after all. If we can have a shield for an Interstate that never existed, then we can certainly have shields that were used in the past and in some cases can even still be seen.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the shields in question are hosted on Commons. They are in the scope of Commons and should still be there, even though the English Wikipedia may consider them useless. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 23:37, 19 April 2008 (GMT)

Beh, a piece of trash in Missouri is just as useless in Toledo. Where a file's hosted doesn't change its usefulness. Of course, it's not really worth the effort to delete something unless it's actively wrong or redundant, so I don't really find any pressing need to delete the non-existent interstate shields. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not when one man's trash is another man's treasure. Shields for nonexistent highways aren't hosted on Wikipedia (and wouldn't be even if any shields were hosted on Wikipedia) because they wouldn't be useful in an encyclopoedic context. However, they are still hosted on Commons because they may be useful in other contexts... i.e. personal roadgeek websites. -- Kéiryn ^talk 04:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The same logic can be applied to state-name shields. I just hope Freewayguy sees it the same way so we can finally put this silly discussion behind us.-Jeff ^(talk) 14:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, just for sake of time; for other 40 states lets just use state-name specific in history only, deviod them from small icons, and infobox.--Freewayguy (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Who cares if the shield shows the name or not? Most of the time a reader can't see them anyway, period. We don't need to delete them, but using them is kinda pointless honestly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

ACR issue

We have an issue and I'd like to get some input... a state highway WP has a long-determined consensus on an issue. However, ACR does not like this and threatens to fail the article if it does not go against the consensus formed at that state highway WP. What should be done here? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think normally little things like formatting don't matter – for example, we seem to have decided that it doesn't matter whether or not an article uses color in the junction list. But if a project's standards get in the way of the clarity of an article, then that needs to be fixed. -- Kéiryn ^talk 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's my simple take on it. The article can be changed to satisfy the consensus at ACR. That's easy and gets it past ACR. Of course now the article violates the consensus formed at the wikiproject, at least unless/until the WP changes things. It's a no-win situation. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's an unfortunate situation when you have two conflicting consensuses. It becomes a question of which consensus is (a) more important and (b) has better rationale behind it. Also, by the looks of it, the consensus at MISH was formed right around the time WP:SRNC was closing, and before a lot of the USRD standardization occurred. It may be time for that subproject to revisit the issue to see if consensus can change to match what seems to be forming around the ACR.

I'd disagree that it's a no-win situation though. If you change the article to pass the ACR, then you get an A-Class article. (Win!) Also, as a by-product, you've started discussion to maybe change MISH standards to make the articles a little more clear, and avoid having this problem again in the future. (Win!) -- Kéiryn ^talk 02:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the biggest problems facing USRD have been related to editors making changes that buck consensus without discussion. Given that we just got over an ArbCom, I'm reluctant to buck consensus. Now a discussion at WT:MISH has been started, but I'm not the WP so I'm not the consensus. I personally could care less, but I'm sensitive to the idea not to go against what is currently a settled practice at one project to satisfy another. Until this issue is settled, I won't make a change myself that go against what MISH decided until MISH decides to change. When MISH makes that change, I'll run through every article and make every change necessary for compliance to any new standard. Until then, this MISH project member won't make the change, but he won't revert it if others make it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, ACR qualified as a discussion. -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a discussion about a specific article. It's not a consensus "debate" about a whole project. It's the wrong forum to have a discussion about a MISH practice that was decided on WT:MISH. MISH members interested in the results of the discussion over the practice may or may not even pay attention to or know about the ACR. Now then, like I said, a request was made at WT:MISH about this discussion here (since it does affect more than MISH) and I'm sure one might start over there. The end result is that on a known forum, a new consensus may or may not be formed. Until that time, I'm not going against a settled decision made by consensus, but nor will I revert edits made from the ACR discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Imzadi, since no one else has replied, I figured I'd ask you what your personal opinion is, since you haven't really shared it yet. Are you just following that guideline because it's a guideline? Or is it something you actually agree with? Why or why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kéiryn (talk • contribs)

My personal opinion is that I don't honestly care which way some things are done. I'm all about certain levels of consistency being in place. I'm also about letting each state project have a certain level of latitude on things. Having said that, ACRs IMHO are about a specific article. If that article does something new and innovative, or old and different and there's an objection, there should be a discussion about it, but somethings shouldn't be changed against consensus. That's how WP is set up.

I said it before, too many times WP:BOLD has been abused. Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but I joined WP:MISH years ago and only in the last several months have I been a member of USRD. I've seen from afar what the SRNC did. Michigan was spared that drama mostly. One day it was at Michigan State Highway 28 and the next day it was at a much better named M-28 (Michigan highway) and we never changed what we were doing except to fix links along the way to the new names.

The recent ArbCom has had me thinking about things. I try to play fair and get along. Yeah, I get stubborn sometimes. Call it Michigan-pride. Maybe it's a personal pride. I try to just edit and do the best that I can do. I try to keep things the most accurate they can be, and fix what I know is wrong. I follow the guidelines laid down until a guideline is changed. (Lots of the MOS pages read like Greek to me at times. I think someone could make a great book putting the MOS into book format for referencing on the side with detailed examples.) When a project set down a guideline though, that project should be the forum for changing it. It's all great and dandy if FAC or an ACR or even a GA reviewer makes a suggestion for a change, but those forums aren't the project. They're a discussion over the merits of a particular article. We've had drama and mini edit wars over neologisms where the issue was tossed up on an article talk page no one had on a watch list. Some of those discussions should have been initiated at a project talk page since they affected more than just that one article. Maybe that's not the same to others, but it is to me. I'd rather let the proper forum be the agent for change than start another round of drama, but I guess with this group of editors we'll always have some drama no matter what.

Tonight I expanded the last two stubs MI had left. As a member of MISH, I should be celebrating, but I'm not. My sprit and enthusiasm for editing I rekindled since January is broken. It seems like every time there's a new development there's been a new criticism somewhere. You can't edit that. Don't start that article, we have these to expand. Why are you using that word, this is better. Many of us invest a part of ourselves into our work on here. We have varying interests, varying talents. What one of us considers interesting another will find dull. We have people "inventing" issues where they don't truly exist. Some of us say we waste resources updating somethings, but does the great server farm that runs this site know the difference between a page edit to insert a missing ")" or adding several KB to an article by adding an entire section? Others say we waste time by adding a new article to the database when another need expansion. I see there's a debate about how to add in the missing articles to WW stats. So I see that we have a mixed priority to both expand what we have AND add what we are missing.

I'm doing some soul-searching about some things lately. I apologize if this reply is so long. There's been a lot of upheaval in my non-wiki life as well as on wiki lately. I'm sorry if the two got jumbled too much. I've been the closest to just completely walking away from WP I've ever been this week. The problem though is that I come to my computer and since January, I've felt like a community member. I have some people I know I will see on IRC. We'll joke, we'll talk, we'll reassess pages. I can review a page for someone and say, "I have an idea about..." Someone will look over a page and catch the period I forgot, or the one I though I typed there. Ok, so we all competed over our WW stats. Guess what though in both measures, cumulative and relative, the numbers are dropping where the editors are active. Some states are moving faster than others. It's a shame that Idaho isn't seeing as much action as New York, but some talented editors live there or are interested in the NY articles. Maybe when the ID version of a TwinsMetsFan is found we'll see that state surge in quality. I think we all respect the dedication and talents of the others on here, but let me lay down an olive branch. I'm only trying not to violate consensus as best as I know what's defined in policies, guidelines or working practices. We've gotten overly bureaucratic when simple updates are getting reverted when a state gets its first FA hours before the whole leaderboard will need a new update for the monthly newsletter. Wouldn't it look silly in the newsletter to have the newest FA mentioned, yet not appear in the leaderboard because the arbitrary chart update came hours before the good people at WP:FA closed the FAC, people who know nothing of the arcane update schedule?

I don't know what anyone will think about what I've said here tonight, but for now... Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I will refrain from writing the leaderboard section of the newsletter until the next update. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were waiting to put out the newsletter on my account, but I've done another nationwide update for your benefit. -- Kéiryn ^talk 15:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Truly insightful comments, and many of them reflect opinions that I myself share. I wholeheartedly agree with your entire third paragraph. I've been seriously wikibonked (and bonked in a variety of other areas as well) the past few days, hence my late reply to both my and your ACRs. I even went so far as to put {{retirement}} back on my userpage for all of a couple of minutes. And I assure you it had nothing to do with the attitude that you pulled – or the attitude that I pulled – at the M-35 ACR. We've had two Arbcom cases, one could be characterized as us vs. SPUI, the other as us vs. NE2. But yet here we are still, constantly arguing, and rarely reaching bonafide conclusions. Has it ever occurred to anyone that maybe the problem didn't necessarily lie with two individual users?

We're never going to agree on whether ACR was the correct forum to start this discussion. I'm more or less okay with that. As long as discussion starts, I don't care much where. But when you say that ACR is for a specific article, I say Exactly! ACR should be about improving a specific article, and if project standards get in the way of doing that – be they state or USRD standards – oh well. At least the article was improved, and maybe we get to think about changing that standard so that other articles can be improved too.

Regarding the last point – assessment updates – I'm actually more or less in agreement with you here. Mainly I just objected to the way it was presented on my talk page. I'm going to update the stats sometime between Friday evening and Saturday morning, which 99% of the time should be more than sufficient for a newsletter that goes out Saturday afternoons. So generally, no, I'm not going to do a special update 30 hours after I've just done one. All that being said, I totally understand that there are momentous events (like an FA or a 0 in the stubs column) that people will want properly represented in the newsletter. So yeah, I would say that definitely wasn't worth the revert. -- Kéiryn ^talk 13:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree and disagree with the part about the assessment updates. Since I am the one that did the reversion, I guess I should submit my reasoning. I have no problem with someone doing an intermediate update, but at least do it across the board. We just had the national update 24 hours prior to that update, so we were looking at 6 days of incorrect stats (and I know that some other states had changed between the two changes). If you want to update a particular state, thats fine, but you need to do a nationwide update while you are there to keep everything accurate. It really isn't that difficult to do the nationwide update either since not every state will have changes. Just run the bot on all of USRD, then look at the quality log for the changes that occurred, then run the bot on those states and update them with your update of the page. I can do it right now if it is really that big of a deal. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Step ahead of you. :-P Update is about to go live.

But I was thinking that in these rare cases – monumental events with really bad timing – it might be okay to only update the states where the monumental events occurred for the sake of the newsletter.

In general though, updating only select states should be cause for trout smacking. -- Kéiryn ^talk 13:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here is, the method that WP:MISH is currently employing to show a concurrency in the infobox falls short of that goal. It may make sense to you as the person writing the article and as a member of the project who came up with that idea, but it doesn't to outsiders. At first glance, I would assume that the highway intersects itself. Not until reading further would I come to find out what exactly is going on. So perhaps something like: US 2 / US 41 concurrency from Escanaba to Gladstone? --Holderca1 ^talk 20:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We tried something similar, maybe time to reintroduce that concept... Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure what the big deal is about concurrencies and why they need to be treated any differently than normal junctions. Notes about the concurrency can (and should) go in the route description and the junction list, but IMHO, they're not part of the "quick overview" that goes in the infobox. But, if Michigan wants to insist on putting them there, I'm not going to stop them, and Holderca's suggestion seems like a fine way to do it. My one concern is that it would make the junction take up two lines, which is probably less than desirable. -- Kéiryn ^talk 13:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New England multi-state routes

There is a potential dispute in how to treat the New England Interstate Routes between myself and User:Monsieurdl. It is perhaps time to ask for wider input on how best to treat these routes. Currently some of them serve as the articles for the current routes while others serve as a historical article and merely link to the current articles. Suggestions are most welcome. --Polaron | Talk 00:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion has been set up at Talk:New England Interstate Route 8#RFC for these NE Interstate Route pages; there should probably be a summary of the issue there. --NE2 01:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Manifesto... again

I know, I said I'd start discussions related to it, and I never did. My life has been upended lately and I haven't had the time to work on that. I hope to start those soon. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Utah promotion?

It's been proposed at WT:USRD/SUB. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Arkansas template madness

I've been looking through the Arkansas articles merging bannered routes into their parents and adding infoboxes. Unfortunately, Arkansas has some peculiarities that our present templates aren't set up to handle.

Firstly is the issue of multi-segmented routes. Arkansas has several highways that are broken into many short discontinuous bits. I think some Arkansas highways have as many as four independent sections of roadway. Obviously, using our present {{infobox road}} is impossible to accurately include the several lengths and termini of these disjointed highways. Oklahoma has a few two-segment routes, and a fork of {{infobox road}}, {{Infobox Oklahoma Highway 2}}, is used for those routes. This template shows what I think could be added to Infobox Road to allow multi-segmented routes to be displayed. Doing so would also have the convenient benefit of obsoleting that template.

Another thing that needs to be done is support for Arkansas's strange bannered route shields. I've been using {{shban}} when merging spurs, but I'm not sure the display is right, because the shields Arkansas use have a letter appended, e.g. like AR 22 BUS using a shield like [22B], AR 59 SPUR = [59S], etc. I'm not sure whether the [BUSINESS] plate is supposed to be used or not; I've seen picture both with it or without, but the letter is consistently present. So something needs to be done there, but I'm not sure what. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Massachusetts has a similar issue with multi-segmented routes. There are currently three methods being used. The Route 2A method (treated as one route with line breaks at gaps), the Route 3A method (disambiguation page), and the Route 8A method (each segment has its own line). But we should definitely come up with a standard way to treat these more properly. --Polaron | Talk 01:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, those are suffixed routes, so they could all theoretically be merged into the parent route or something. But yes, something needs to be done. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always found that a horizontal rule works fine for multi-part routes like California State Route 190. --NE2 04:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that method isn't helpful at all for displaying termini or the lengths of individual sections. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Termini are just before and after the line. Lengths... if they're really that different that you need separate lengths, maybe they should be separate articles? --NE2 05:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And how is that clear at all to someone not familiar with it? It wasn't to me, and I'm sure that it wouldn't be to "the readers". Splitting the articles is not practical because in many cases the segments are very short resulting in unsustainable articles. Also, the Oklahoma source provides the lengths separately, so while I could add them up and provide a total length, why would I want to do that, when it would be more clear to have them displayed separately? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just always listed the overall termini of the entire route in the infobox and not listed the section termini unless they qualify as a major junction. An example of that is Texas State Highway 211. I just used the length for the entire route in the infobox. Specifics about the discontinuity are mentioned in the prose and junction list. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what's unclear about the horizontal rule thing. The infobox is supposed to be just a general overview of the article, so if it's not exactly specific about discontinuities in the route, that's okay, because whatever's not clear or specific can be cleared up in the article prose. (Gee, where have I said this before? :-P) -- Kéiryn ^talk 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree that it is okay, because simply stating the two endmost termini without stating the "inner" termini is misleading. You can't get from one terminus to the other using the article route. Since apparently nobody wants to change infobox road to handle this, I'll just make a separate template like OK has that can do the tricks I need. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I use a horizontal line only when the route is in sections because of historical reasons. If the sections were never connected, I split them into sections or new articles. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 02:40, 29 April 2008 (GMT)

What is the advantage of using {{shban}} over {{infobox road}}? It seems to me that the simple solution would be to stop using {{shban}}. --Holderca1 ^talk 12:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Location
Country	United States
State	Arkansas
Highway system
Arkansas Highway System Interstate US State Business Spurs Suffixed Scenic Heritage

For example, {{infobox road}} has no problem with handling the shields. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's too big to be used for spur routes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What's too big and why? --Holderca1 ^talk 14:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole box. Take a look at Arkansas Highway 7 for an example as to how it would be used. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not terribly convinced an infobox is totally necessary in those cases, but if it is, it shouldn't be terribly hard to add a |shield= parameter to {{shban}} to override the default display. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That might work. An {{arban}} template could be created as a wrapper to call it and switch the proper shield in automatically. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't be necessary, you already are giving a state parameter to {{shban}}. It shouldn't be too hard to code it to the correct Arkansas shield. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it works now. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, {{shban}} needs some fixes other than just calling the correct shield, it doesn't have a length parameter at all. Also, isn't the Location paramter redundant since the section title already tells you that? From that example, {{shban}} looks like an infobox with no info. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not supposed to. It's a pared down box intended for spurs and business routes, based on the {{usban}} box we use for the U.S. bannered route lists. It intentionally leaves out some parameters so it can be smaller.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think that length would be a pretty important one to have. Is its only purpose to show what the shield looks like, because that is all that it is doing. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not when the length of the route isn't known, which seems to be pretty damned common on bannered routes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So make it an optional parameter. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we deprecate {{shban}} simply by adding a parameter to {{infobox road}} that would make the shield smaller? -- Kéiryn ^talk 18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

State highway system infobox

I'm currently in a dispute over whether or not county routes belong in Template:Infobox state highway system. I personally don't believe they do because they are not state-maintained roadways. Then, in the last diff by the editor who I'm not seeing eye-to-eye with, he linked to an article on county routes in California as his reasoning. Now, I feel it's erroneous to use this template there anyway since that's not what the template was made for - it was made for the list pages or articles on state highway systems. Thoughts welcome. – TMF 20:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I apologize for not having monitored the CACR edits lately - stuff has been going on in there that I haven't had time to check out. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the template probably does need to be adjusted to allow for secondary systems that are maintained by the state. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of the county route parameter again and pointed to this discussion in my summary. Per WP:3RR, I'm out of reverts for today so we'll see what happens. – TMF 22:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The new parameter may be useful in cases like New Jersey's 500-series routes and other secondary systems. The parameter need not be strictly "county", but maybe "secondary", 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 02:37, 29 April 2008 (GMT)

Remind me what this template was meant to be used for? If it's just to list the naming conventions and any weird abbreviations the state might use, then it may be somewhat useful to have county routes in here (are they called County Roads or County Routes?) but not particularly so. If it's meant to navigate between various list articles, then it would definitely be useful, provided we have an article on county routes in that state. -- Kéiryn ^talk 20:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See List of State Routes in New York for usage. It's definitely not intended for navigational purposes; in the case of New York, that's performed by another template. – TMF 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, that's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. I think there still might be some use for including county routes, though. For example, when I created this list after the recent AFD – since I don't really do much work in Minnesota, I wasn't sure if I was supposed to be calling them County Road 7 or County Route 7. Having that information in that template could be useful – but definitely not essential. -- Kéiryn ^talk 23:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Former highways and redirects

I came across the U.S. Route 491 article and noticed that it had information in it pertaining to Arizona. At first, I thought this was odd considering the highway has never been routed through Arizona, but then I noticed that it was more or less a history of US 666. I then noticed that U.S. Route 666 redirects to the US 491 article. I realize why this is so, at the time US 666 no longer existed, it was just simply renumbered to US 491. The only problem with this is that Arizona removed US 666 from its highway system about 10 years earlier (for pretty much the same reasons that NM, CO, and UT did in 2003) when it renumbered it to U.S. Route 191. So what are the possible solutions here? We could create a full article for US 666. We could create a pseudo disambiguation page simply stating that for the section of the former US 666 in Arizona, see US 191 and for the section of the former US 666 in New Mexico, Colorado and Utah, see US 491. I like the latter option myself, but if you wanted to keep all of the US 666 info in one place, a full article would have to be created. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a fan of {{Redirect}} in this situation. Like so:

"U.S. Route 666" redirects here. For the former routing of U.S. Route 666 in Arizona, see U.S. Route 491.

. —Rob (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Holcerca1, I get what you are trying to do. But I disagree with this case. I disagree with having separate articles for US-666 and US-491, the two articles would be 85% redundant with each other. I think the amount of coverage of US-666 in Arizona given in the US-491 article is appropriate. Yes, technically speaking US-491 never entered Arizona, but given its connection to US-666 (and US-160, US-163 and US-191) I think some minimal explanation is appropriate.

What I propose to do instead is expand US-191 article (the Arizona section is particularly lacking). Perhaps split off US-191 into state articles (The Utah section is quite long already and I could easily double it with the info on UDOT's homepage alone). The history of "US-191 in Arizona" should also mention its connection to former US-666 and could borrow some stuff from the US-491 article. Once that is done I would support some "see also" tags at the top of the related sections on the US-191 and US-491 articles.

To take the idea of making a separate article for US-666 to its logical conclusion, we would also need articles for US-160 in Utah, US-450 in Utah, and US-164 in Arizona. All of these articles would be nearly 100% redundant with each other and the above discussed articles. Bottom line all of the routes in the Four Corners have a complicated history thanks to multiple designation reshufflings, but I don't think that merits redundant articles. That's one of the major reasons for the Article History section.

Just my $.02 take it for what its worth. Dave (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I really don't want to create those articles, but I do think a dab page would be the best solution. There were about 370 miles of US 666 in Arizona (nearly 2/3 of the entire route) from 1942 until 1992. The current alignment of US 491 was the alignment of US 666 from 1992 until 2003. I changed the redirect at U.S. Route 666 for what I have in mind. If it is deemed that it is a bad idea, I will revert it back. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages should have an absolute minimum of links and no categories; see WP:MOSDAB. I suggest putting seealso|U.S. Route 191 in Arizona in the part of the US 491 history section that talks about US 191, or using a redirect at U.S. Route 666 in Arizona. --NE2 21:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about an absolute minimum of links, I would think the minimum would be two, since if it was only one, a redirect would work. I didn't touch the categories, those were what was there when it was a redirect, but they can be removed easily enough. I don't think that the US 491 history should mention the history of US 666 in Arizona at all. That would be like the history of Interstate 8 in Arizona talking about the history of U.S. Route 80 in New Mexico. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it would be like the history of U.S. Route 99 touching on the Pacific Highway to Vancouver (and linking to British Columbia Highway 15 for details). As for links, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries. --NE2 21:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Part of the issue is the fact that articles are about two things: the physical road and the designation. U.S. Route 491 talks about the road that was US 666 and is now US 491, the US 666 designation, and the US 491 designation. U.S. Route 191 talks about the road that was US 666 and is now US 191 and the US 191 designation. --NE2 21:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would the US 491 article talk about the US 666 designation as a whole? I haven't been writing articles that way. As an example, for an article about US 999, I would write about the history of the US 999 designation in its current form (unrelated highways that have used the same designation would get a link at the very top of the article pointing to an older designation. I would write about the actual roadway that ever carried the US 999 designation. I would write about previous designations that the road carried, but only within the confines that would become US 999. So for the US 491 article, I would talk about the history of the US 491 designation, the history of previous deginations along that same stretch of road with just a mention of that designation in other places. I wouldn't go into detail on US 666 in Arizona, I would direct them to US 191 as you mentioned above. But, in this case, if someone typed in "U.S. Route 666," where would they want to go? Odds are, they want to know about the entire route and history, not just US 491. On an another note, I am not seeing what the problem you are having with the links. In each of the individual entries, the target article is the only thing linked. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

US 666 is actually a better example than most, because there is a lot to write about the designation and its connotation as "the devil's highway". Unless there's a separate article about US 666, this needs a place, and US 491 is the obvious choice. There is also more mundane information such as "US 666 originally went from Foo to Bar"; this also needs a place, and that place is the US 491 article. --NE2 21:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't historically significant designations typically given their own article? --Holderca1 ^talk 22:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not always; when there's only a designation to write about, since the physical road now has other designations, it's probably best to find a good redirect target and cover it there. --NE2 22:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but all the US 666 designation info will also be in the US 191 in AZ article as well whenever I get around to writing it. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would you put the same information in two different articles? The US 191 article should summarize how it applied to the Arizona section and link to US 666/491 for details. --NE2 22:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the US 491 article should just summarize its part as well. I meant just the Arizona part of US 666 anyway, but it isn't going to link to US 491 since it has nothing to do with US 491. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Then there's no non-summary, unless we make one of those "perma-stubs" for US 666. --NE2 22:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be a "perma-stub"? It would be an article about a 600-mile route with an interesting history. If it were still active we would have have state specific articles. --Holderca1 ^talk 23:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it would only be about the designation; any details about the physical road would be in other articles. --NE2 23:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(reset) It would also have a summary of the route description and history summary of extensions, contractions, and realignments just like every other article we write. US 191 in AZ and US 491 would go into more detail on the route description and history. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Which really wouldn't be much. There was a one-to-one renumbering from 666 to 491 in 2003; had the renumbering not been made, we'd have the exact same situation except that the article would be at US 666 rather than US 491. --NE2 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Before this gets blown out of proportion much more. Let's put this in perspective. There are currently _3_ sentences in the US-491 article about US-666 in AZ. So there is not really any overlap between the two articles in their current state. If a 3 page long FA were written about US-191 in AZ detailing about the southern segment's former life as US-666, there would still be very little redundant content. Dave (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem is actually with the redirect. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is a problem why? --NE2 00:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I think it should redirect to US 191 if it is going to redirect anywhere since the majority of the former US 666 is now US 191. Also, saying it was a 1 to 1 renumbering is a little shortsighted. AZ renumbered theirs for the same reason the rest of the route was, they just happened to take care of it 11 years sooner. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If the history of US 666 is covered in US 191, that gives an 11-year gap when talking about the designation. Where do you talk about the designation post-1992? --NE2 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NE2, US 666 only existed in Arizona for a relatively short time, and it had long gained its noteritey by the time it was extended into Arizona. I am from the 4 corners area, and could say A LOT more about US-666 than what is in the article, but as I'm hoping for GA one day, I'm sticking to what I can find a source for. Suffice it to say, Trust me, it was the New Mexico portion (the original portion) that was the infamous portion, and that portion is now US-491. I think US-666 should redirect to US-491 with a prominent mention that the AZ portion is now US-191.Dave (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, thanks for taking it upon yourself to revert the page while we are discussing it. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Recap

Just so I have it straight from above since this is a pretty big change from how we have handled former highways. The way we have been handling them is if a former route was entirely absorbed by another route, a redirect should be used to direct the former route to the current one. For former routes that are currently made up of multiple highways, the former route would get its own article to summarize that particular route since it couldn't be done in any one single article. So, now it appears that all former routes (with the rare exception, i.e. US 66) are to be merged and redirected to the most logical current route. That current route will hold the entire history of that former route irregardless of whether or not that current route followed that particular route. Do I have it about it right? My only question is how do you decide where to redirect it to if it isn't clear cut. For example, where should Texas State Highway 1 be merged to? --Holderca1 ^talk 04:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, like with SH 1, there isn't an obvious target. But US 666 to US 491 was a straight renumbering (the truncation out of Arizona was 11 years earlier), and it probably makes sense to keep it together. --NE2 04:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So what if the Arizona portion was renumbered at the same time as the rest? --Holderca1 ^talk 04:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Then it might make sense to have it separate. --NE2 04:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That just seems strange to me. We have to write articles in a historical context, not just the most recent. So according to that, the portion of US 66 in California isn't as important as the rest? We aren't talking about a small section of US 666 that only existed for a short time. We are talking about a section that accounted for 2/3 of the route's total length and existed for 50 years. Even the article here about the highway talks about the Arizona portion more than any other and makes it clear that the most dangerous portion of the highway was in Arizona. I personally think we have plenty of information to write a full article on US 666. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think though we can have guidelines, the case of how to handle non-current routes should be on a case by case basis. I think it has to be, there's just too many different scenarios to have a one size fits all guideline. For example, I don't think anybody would opposed to a dedicated article about roads as prominent as US-99 or US-66. However, US-666 was formally renumbered as US-491 (that scanned copy of the AASHTO motion linked as a source in the article directly says this). I can't see the need for two articles in this case. I fully support US-191 in AZ being the primary article for the Arizona portion of former US-666 and doing whatever is deemed best, redirect, see also headings, whatever.

To open pandora's box. What I would like to see is some guidelines on how to handle decomissioned US highways in the western states. Here's the current scenario:

1. U.S. Route 91 in California -> Redirects to California State Route 91 - I agree with this.
2. U.S. Route 91 in Nevada -> has a stub article. I disagree, should redirect to either I-15 in NV or US-91
3. U.S. Route 40 in California -> redirects to U.S. Route 40. I'm ok with this, would also support if redirects to Interstate 80 in California.
4. U.S. Route 40 (Nevada) -> Redirects to U.S. Route 40. Same, I'm ok with this but maybe Interstate 80 in Nevada is a better redirect.
5. U.S. Route 60 in California -> Redirects to California State Route 60, I support this.
7. US-70 in CA, US-80 in CA,AZ and NM all redirect to the national articles
8. U.S. Route 99 has its own article. However, is currently proposed to create state specific articles, even though state specific articles already exist under State Route 99 in all 3 states. I oppose this, IMO US-99 in CA should redirect to CA-99, etc.

Dave (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll toss out the examples from MI.

1. M-4, M-111, M-144 and M-213 are all dab pages. The year disambiguating links either redirect directly to the history section of the replacement routes if they were subsumed into new trunklines or there are stand-alone articles. (M-144 has two stand-alone articles for instance.)
2. M-120 (Michigan highway) and M-121 hold the history of the the previous M-120 and M-121 designations respectively in the history section of the articles. since the previous designations were completely decommissioned and not subsumed.
3. M-41 redirects to its replacement with an M-41 subsection in the history.
4. M-45, M-95 and M-212 all contain snippets of joint history. M-95 was M-45 until the designation of US 45 in MIchigan. At that time, M-45 was renumbered to M-95. M-95 was renumbered to M-212 and M-45 was retired until reused later.

Any comments or questions? Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Guide to making shields

I just started Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields/Guide. I felt we needed it after Freewayguy started contacting me to ask how to make shields. It might need some work, maybe some shield images to use as examples, but it's a start.-Jeff ^(talk) 04:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We already have a page: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields/Design. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about that page. Considering my page seems to cover some things that that one doesn't and vice versa, they should probably be merged. I don't really care what title the merged guide ends up at, so I'll let someone else do the merging.-Jeff ^(talk) 01:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles for exit ramps?

Talk:Interstate 87#NY 912Q merge proposal – TMF 02:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like more than an exit ramp - not that that means it should be separate, but it doesn't help you to be misleading. --NE2 04:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He's not misleading. The "connector" is nothing more than a glorified exit ramp. Like a tumpet interchange. seicer | talk | contribs 04:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I count six ramps plus a two-way roadway. An exit ramp is simply that - a single ramp from one direction to the local road. A trumpet is four ramps. --NE2 04:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

To debate semantics overthis is to divert attention from the main point. This is a short, largely unnotable piece of pavement. I see no real qualms with the merge, except that the person who proposed it stretched the definition of a word where someone else didn't like it. If we ignore that, the article is hardly worth keeping. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Some scans

[12] has scans of some historical reports that led to the Interstates. --NE2 15:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Historic photos

Judging by the filenames, the photos at [13] are all from the FHWA or NARA and are thus public domain. --NE2 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC query

I've seen several opposes at FAC based on "shields" in images. What are they, what does this refer to, what is the issue, what is the difference between a "shielded" and "non-shielded" image? And on what MoS guideline or policy is this oppose based? Please educate me. (Read the shields page, still don't know what it means, need to know what guideline governs this, not a Project page.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The main discussion about the issue is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Maps_task_force#Main_image_inconsistency. The short version is that at the beginning of all things, maps made without Interstate shields (i.e., ) were adequate. Nowadays people believe that maps should have those shields. The linked discussion argues about the proper number of shields, and no guideline nor conclusion was established. (To my best knowledge) —Rob (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the shield is that sign thingie? But if there is no guideline or policy, this isn't an issue for FAC (per WP:WIAFA), and would be an oppose based on preference rather than WIAFA. Is that a correct summary? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, completely. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(2 ECs) Yes. It's just TonyTheTiger who's opposing FACs based on whether the maps have highway shields (). A good number of us here feel that in the majority of cases the extra shields on maps do nothing to aid in locating the road and can in fact detract from the quality of maps by cluttering them. Consensus seems to be that their use should be determined on a case by case basis by the cartographer. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thx; until such time as there is a guideline, then, you all can politely redirect those conversations to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Project U.S. Roads}}

This template has fallen by the wayside, and currently USRD users have no way of knowing the latest information. I am proposing redoing this template entirely to make it more compact and to be easier to update. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, part of the problem with it is there's no way of knowing when it's updated. Since it's modular, watchlisting the template doesn't do anything as all changes occur on the subpages. So you either have to watchlist the subpages of the projects your interested in, or set the template as your homepage or check it every day or something. And if you're going to do that, why not just watchlist the talk pages of the projects you care about? I wouldn't be sad to see this go if it were TFDed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering redoing it with ideas from other large WikiProjects to see if it works - there are some uses where such a template might be more effective than a watchlist. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Backlogs

• Category:U.S. Roads project articles needing maps - 7,327
• Category:U.S. road articles needing attention - 354
• Category:U.S. road articles with an exit list needing attention - 293
• Category:U.S. road articles without infoboxes - 200
• Category:U.S. Roads project articles needing shields - 48

GO!—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

FA and USRD

Interstate 70 in Utah was recently promoted to Featured Article status, but in the process two points (that I can see) of the article are no longer in line with what literally the rest of USRD looks like. The first is the boldface in history; that discussion is contained in a section above (attempts to draw editors from the FAC to the discussion were unsuccessful). The second is the lead; currently, the lead for the majority of state-detail articles begins with "The portion of <nonboldface wikilinked national route>" or something similar while the lead on I-70 in UT uses boldface then follows it up with a link to I-70 (that is then piped to what appears to be an uncommon name for I-70).

Which way is "right" in either point (boldface/lead)? Personally, I have no opinion or idea but the point of my posting is that the inconsistencies between I-70 UT and the "rest" of USRD are undeniably present and should be rectified. – TMF 04:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the way the first sentence is right now is poorly written and redundant. WP:LEAD specifically says not to bold the title if it is descriptive. --Holderca1 ^talk 04:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the introduction; WP:LEAD#Bold title is pretty clear on this. --NE2 04:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the lead sentence was discussed ad nauseum during the FAC. Please see that discussion before changing the lead. I did cite the very section NE2 is referring to. The impression I got from the discussion was that if the lead can be reasonably worded to accommodate a bold title, it should be. The lead sentence of the article as passed at FAC was written by the FAC director, not me. So I think there were some experienced people that wrote it. I personally prefer the former wording of the lead, but please at least read the discussion before jumping in and reverting text. The FAC director did make a good defense for why she re-wrote the lead. For crying out loud it only passed an hour ago, let me at least get some enjoyment for months of hard work before you all tear it to shreds.

The other point about bolding: Everybody at FAC was pretty unanimous to the point that only in rare cases should there be bold test outside the lead. Though my opinion has changed a couple times on this point. I'm currently of the opinion that the FAC opinions were right and USRD is outside of the MOS. As has been brough up in the ACR, its not the first time that USRD has updated the MOS due to comments in FAC or ACR. I've gone back ad forth on this and reserve the right to change my mind again =-). Dave (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the people at FA are in the right either - both changes that I see were made by one editor (and IMO both hurt the quality of the article - so I guess I do have an opinion after all), and I honestly couldn't care less if that editor is a newbie or the appointed FA assistant or whatever. The essence of it is that, in terms of the boldface in history, a link to the discussion on this page was posted at both the FAC and on the MOS page where the boldface guideline is discussed. No one from either venue commented, which really doesn't help anyone determine 1) if it's wrong and 2) if it is, what is a suitable alternative. As I said above, leaving it unbolded opens the door for editors who are unaware of the situation to link the text, creating an erroneous link that either redirects back to that page or links to the current use of that designation, and also leaves people who follow the redirect thinking "why am I here".

I also agree with NE2's change of the lead's opening sentence - the one that's there now, for lack of a better word, sucks. (If this is the type of lead being used/forced on FAs, it doesn't leave me a good impression on the direction this site is going since it violates at least two guidelines/policies.) – TMF 06:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence of the lead currently really sucks. "Interstate 70 in Utah is the portion of Interstate Highway 70, commonly abbreviated I-70, that runs...across the central part of the U.S. state of Utah." Looking through the entries on Wikipedia:Featured articles, there are actually a fair number of the small number with descriptive titles that actually have bolded links. Prostitution in the People's Republic of China handles it really strangely; South Australian general election, 2006 only bolds a small portion. Axis naval activity in Australian waters, which appeared on the main page two months ago, is one of the few with no bolding at all. The main page blurb simply bolded the corresponding text, resulting in the loss of a link. I recommend we reword it naturally without regard for the title, and then if it's on the front page we can replace "Within the U.S. state of Utah, Interstate 70..." with "Within the U.S. state of Utah, Interstate 70...". Are there any objections to this beyond it not being discussed during the FAC? --NE2 08:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur, WP:LEAD even goes as far as to say not to bold the title of a descriptive article title even if it appears verbatim in the opening sentence. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. If you read Sandy's logic, irronically TFA was the reason for Sandy wording it the way she did. I agree it was worded better beforeDave (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought Raul just rewrote the blurbs for TFA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 13:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the discussion. She was trying to make it easier on Raul.Dave (talk)

Yeah, I saw her comments and I don't agree with her reasoning. Not all FAs make it to TFA anyway and even at that, it is one day in the life of the article. It doesn't make sense to force awkward wording on an article just to make it easier on the FA director for something that might happen. A better idea is to ask to see if it can be reworded when the article is actually selected for TFA. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have invited User:Juliancolton to join this discussion. He was one of the advocates of the lead as passed at FAC. I tend to agree the old lead was better, but in the interest of not making a "unilateral" decision, anybody mind if we give Julian a day or two to chime in first, to explain the reasoning?Dave (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not the end of the world, as it was more of a comment at the FAC discussion. In WP:LEAD, it says If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive...the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface. In my opinion, Interstate 70 in Utah is a commonly accepted name, and is not simply a descriptive title. Again, I don't really have a strong opinion either way; it is just my preference to see the boldface in article like this. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The road is not named "Interstate 70 in Utah"; it is named "Interstate 70", and the article describes the portion of the route within the state of Utah. Thus, it is "simply descriptive". – TMF 18:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article is Interstate 70 in Utah. It is a stretch of Interstate 70 in the state of Utah. Thus, Interstate 70 in Utah is not simply descriptive, but rather the commonly recognized name. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And yes, Interstate 70 is the name of the highway, but this article is specifically about the portion in Utah. I-70 has its own article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The commonly accepted name is just Interstate 70, adding in Utah is descriptive as it tells you what part. I think this statement from WP:LEAD sums it up pretty well: "This avoids needlessly awkward phrasing, repeated words, and allows for direct links to the general topics." Forcing the bolding of the title here results in an awkward and repetitive opening sentence that basically says: "Interstate 70 in Utah is the portion of Interstate 70 in the U.S. state of Utah." --Holderca1 ^talk 19:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this seems to be approaching an edit war, as in the last few days I have seen NE2 change the lead sentence, with Dave and Glennfcowan reverting his changes twice. I will start by saying that I am a wikifriend of Dave's. Let it also be said that before the FA review, Dave essentially had NE2's version of a lead sentence, without the bolded title as to avoid awkward phrasing... which I prefer. Yes, people expect to see the title in bold when they read the first sentence of an article, but the MOS states that it should be avoided when the title is descriptive, which this title obviously is. The road is not called "I-70 in Utah" it is called "I-70". An article titled "Plumbers in Utah" would be considered descriptive as opposed to an article simply about plumbers. Bolding the title of an article with a descriptive phrase creates an awkward lead sentence and also creates a bold wikilink (which also should be avoided) to the higher-level article. I personally have an article titled Trucking industry in the United States which is only GA-class but nevertheless, has no bolded title in the lead sentence because it is descriptive. If you ask me, this article should not have a bold sentence. According to Dave's comment, an article should have a bold title in the lead if it can be accomodated. However, there is no mention of this in the MOS... in fact it specifically says about descriptive titles "if [the title] does happen to appear, it should not be boldface". I think that should put this debate to rest (although I doubt it will), unless consensus has changed and the MOS needs to be updated to reflect the fact that bolded titles are mandatory. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care how you word the lead, but please conform with WP:LEAD: "The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence, and should appear in boldface. Avoid links in the bold title words." Right now, you're not. The FAC version of I-70 in Utah conformed and I haven't seen a good reason not to conform in this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm seeing stability discussions because you all haven't worked this out; if you think highway and roads warrant an exception at WP:LEAD, please work that out at the talk page of WP:LEAD so you can present stable articles at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a compelling reason to violate this portion of WP:LEAD: "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface." --Holderca1 ^talk 01:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with your articles, and I'm having trouble seeing what the issue is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any other FAs from your wikiproject that have this issue. There are a bunch of GAs that have this issue; all of them seem to me to comply with WP:LEAD, although in different ways. Here are the first 6:

East 233rd Street is one of the major thoroughfares of the Bronx.

Gun Hill Road is a major thoroughfare in the New York City borough of the Bronx.

In the U.S. state of Arizona, Interstate 8 (I-8) is a 178.36-mile (287.04 km) Interstate Highway that extends from the Arizona-California border to Interstate 10 near Casa Grande, Arizona.

Interstate 35E (I-35E) is an Interstate Highway in the U.S. state of Minnesota, passing through downtown Saint Paul.

In the U.S. state of Colorado, Interstate 70 is an Interstate Highway traversing an east-west route across the center of the state.

Interstate 40 (I-40) is an east-west Interstate Highway that has a 359.11-mile (577.93 km) section in the U.S. state of Arizona connecting sections in California to New Mexico.

Is anyone saying that there's anything wrong with the first sentence in any of those GAs? Also, you're handling the "(Hwy) in (state)" two different ways; would you rather be consistent, at least at the GA and FA level? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with consistency. Either we change the article to Interstate 70 (Utah) or we leave the bold title out of the lead. Thats my opinion. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, I-70 in Utah is about the portion of I-70 in that state, while I-35E is an interstate highway wholly within some state, so they're not really the same thing. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'm having an even bigger confusion over whether the articles are even being named correctly or whether WP:LEAD is being overinterpreted, if there is this issue about the names being descriptive only. To me, a road is a road is a subject is a thing; a descriptive title is something like the examples given at WP:LEAD: Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, not "subjects". To my way of thinking, I-70 in Utah isn't descriptive; it's the entity, and WP:LEAD didn't intend for us to not bold them. If I-70 in Utah isn't the "subject" of the article, rather than a descriptive title, I'm confused about the entire naming scheme in Roads or how we distinguish between "the article's subject" and when we're merely being "descriptive". To me, WP:LEAD lays it out: "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, ... " Well, isn't I-70 in Utah a commonly accepted name? To me, this discussion is over interpreting WP:LEAD. At any rate, I don't have time to follow the entire discussion, am not concerned which way the conclusion goes so long as there is one <smile>, but just don't want to see edit warring and want to see a broad consensus and a decision used across FAs. (Also Dank55 has a habit of referring to GAs as a standard, which makes no sense to me because they don't usually conform with MoS (or a lot of things) anyway, so what they do or don't do has no meaning or relevance to FAs or FAC or guidelines.) I hope someone will ping me when this is resolved so I can stay apprised and not make unreasonable demands at FAC ... there is too much for me to follow it all, and I have to rely on Tony's monthly update :-) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, let me see if I can take a stab and clearing the clutter a bit.
  • Interstate 70 in Utah is about a section of the larger, nationwide Interstate 70 in the state of Utah.
  • Interstate 275 (Florida) and Interstate 275 (Michigan) are about "child" routes of the Interstate System that fall in single states. There's also Interstate 275 (Indiana-Kentucky-Ohio) which fall in three states. In each case though they are separate highways with a common number.

There are similar naming schemes for US Highways as well.

Having said all of that, the current name is descriptive to me. Nowhere is it officially called "Interstate 70 in Utah". The official name is still just Interstate 70. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to Scott, there is also an I-35E (Texas), so I fail to see how the "Texas" part is not descriptive. Whether an Interstate is wholly within a single state or not has no bearing on whether or not the "State" part is descriptive. People in Utah don't call it "I-70 in Utah" they call it "I-70" so I fail to see how this is the article's subject and not a descriptive title. If it were the official name then it would be called "Utah I-70" and not "I-70 in Utah". Does anyone else here feel like we're beating a dead horse? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the I-70 in UT title is descriptive. I was attempting to merely clear up the fact that I-35E MN/TX thing is more disambiguation and not really the same thing as I-70 in UT, which is describing that the article is about the segment of I-70 that falls within the state of Utah. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That part might be clearer to me (non-Road person :-) if you can explain why there's a difference between an Interstate (like 275) that covers 3 states and an Interstate like 70 that covers more than 3 states. They both cover more than one state, unlike the Florida and Michigan example. That might clear up the naming confusion. On the "descriptive" part, I still feel like saying the name must be "official" is (or may be) an overinterpretation of WP:LEAD. For example, if I just browse through WP:FA, and if I applied that "official name" concept, we'd have to change bolding on a lot of articles which doesn't seem to me to be in the spirit of WP:LEAD, examples: Slate industry in Wales, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens or Geology of the Grand Canyon area. Those names aren't "official" but they are the subject of the articles, and most FAs conform to that concept. I don't want you all to feel picked on, but realize that whatever you come up with, I have to apply it consistently outside of road articles, so I'm concerned that we not over-interpret the "descriptive" vs. "subject" part of LEAD in a way that doesn't make sense for other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I-275 is a three-digit interstate. Three-digit interstates are shorter "child" routes which connect to a "parent" route (in this case I-75) and serves as a spur or loop route to or through an urban area. (Kurumi.com gives an excellent overview of the subject.) Since the three-digit routes are so short, and there's only 9 numbers available for offshoots of any given parent interstate, their numbers are duplicated. I-275 is one of these duplicated routes; I-275 uses the names of the three states in parenthesis for disambiguation purposes.

I-70 is an interstate that runs from Cove Fort, UT to Baltimore, MD. The I-70 in UT article covers the portion of I-70 in the state of Utah in more depth than the I-70 main article can. It's basically a sub-article of the I-70 article. Does this clear things up any? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting better, but I have to now browse WP:FA to make sure there are no counterexamples that will trip me up on consistency. For example, sub-articles or disambiguation. You're saying the state in parentheses is a disambiguation, and that makes sense and is consistent with leads in other articles (we don't bold the part of the article title that is the disambiguation, as in If (magazine). OK, but this brings me back to the naming confusion: why isn't it I-70 (Utah) then, for consistency with other dabs? If the Utah is to distinguish it as a sub-article from all the I-70 articles, why not treat it like all the other road articles, and put the Utah in parens? See, I'm not sure if this is a WP:LEAD problem or a naming issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another good counterexample: History of Lithuania (1219–1295). Just like I-70 in Utah is part of the entire road, 1219 to 1295 is part of the entire History of Lithuania, but they bold it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If I understand the naming convention was a result of an arbcom case (or similar) and the criteria was set here WP:SRNC. However, this was long before my time. You might ask an editor whose been around longer. Regardless, I agree that if you ask somebody "what road is this?" they will say "I-70" not "I-70 in Utah" so this is a descriptive title. Now if we want to revise the consensus reached at WP:SRNC there's a LOT of articles to move =-) Dave (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean road naming is a can of worms alert? :-) OK, so to be consistent, how can I make this application of "descriptive leads" work with the counterexample I gave above? Are you all going to say a lot of current practice on FA leads is wrong? <eeek> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of alternate ways of wording the lead that would both allow for a bolded, non-linked title without being redundant. Here's the best I can come up with:

1. Within the U.S. state of Utah, Interstate 70 (I-70)...

Not a true bolded title, but it's the best I could some up with. Is that enough bolding to resolve your concerns?Dave (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking to just bold something: I'm looking for a resolution that is consistent across all articles. Still thinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is such a complicated issue for such a simple problem. The problem here is we have a problem with inconsistency across the board. If we change Interstate 70 in Utah to Interstate 70 (Utah) who's to say we shouldn't change Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers to Eletrical characteristics (dynamic louspeakers), or Trucking industry in the United States to Trucking industry (United States)? I think we've opened a can of worms we aren't prepared to deal with! Someone ask Jimbo what he thinks we should do. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ostriches are looking good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, is it acceptable to break the bolding into two words or phrases? Given that the title is "Interstate 70 in Utah", could the article begin "Interstate 70 runs through Utah for X miles from..."

Yes, but optimum is to do it in a way that also works in the links (to Utah and I-70), like the FAC version that no one likes. Anyway, now that I've been reminded of that ArbCom case (which seemed to go on forever and involve half of Wiki), I'm not sure dragging this out will accomplish anything. I'll go with descriptive, if that's consensus here, which means no bolding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, this has nothing to do with any ArbCom case; the one several years ago was about the names of state highways, and WP:USSH specifically says it does not apply to Interstates. The following examples may clear things up, or may make it more confusing:

1. Interstate 95 is a multi-state route.
   • Interstate 95 in Maryland is a single-state portion of that route.
     • Interstate 95 in Baltimore, Maryland is an even smaller portion.
     • So is John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway, but this portion has an actual name.
2. Interstate 84 is a disambiguation page, since there are two routes with that number.
   • Interstate 84 (west) is a multi-state route.
     • Interstate 84 in Oregon is a single-state portion of that route.
3. Interstate 295 is a disambiguation page.
   • Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) is a multi-state route.
     • Interstate 295 in New Jersey is a single-state portion of that route. There is no separate article, and there probably never will be, but that is what it would be named.

WP:UKRD does it differently:

• A1 road is a long route.
  • A1 road (London) is the portion in London. They bold A1 in London with links, so even though the article is not titled "A1 in London" that's what they use as the bolded (descriptive) name.

I'm trying and failing to think of an example outside roads where a long linear feature may be split into smaller sections that don't have their own names. Long rail lines generally have subdivision names, and I don't know of any other linear features covered in sufficient detail (rivers? (Upper Mississippi River is an actual name) canals? power lines?). This may be an almost unique situation. --NE2 08:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest WP:Stop bolding everything, which is a nice essay recently linked from WP:MOSBOLD. It suggests that the decision at FAC wasn't right; bolding "Interstate 70 in Utah" suggests that it is something special, and it's not, it's just the part of I-70 that runs through Utah. On the other hand, I think I understand what the people at your FAC (including Sandy) were saying: we can't screw around with the bolding rules, because then people start doing strange things with it (in general...not in your wikiproject), and then things just look nasty. And the essay supports their idea that something should be bolded in the first sentence in that essay, because it's not merely a descriptive title of ordinary things: Interstate 70 is a definite thing that deserves bolding, even if you leave "Utah" out of the bolding. So, if everyone's already happy, then don't listen to me, but if you're still looking for what the style guidelines say and what other FAs do, I'd say go with something like "Interstate 70 runs through Utah (or Utah) for X miles from...".

And in response to what Sandy said about my judgment regarding GAs, I don't see how it's possible to help increase the monthly output of GAs and FAs without looking at what happens in both processes. FAC does a good job of building consensus for what articles should look like, but listening to what people want at the GAN level is essential to ramping up production. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking about increasing output in this discussion: we're sorting out interpretation of a guideline: since GAs don't usually follow policy or guidelines anyway, what they do or don't do isn't particularly helpful info. My bottom line on this entire matter (which is more complicated than I realized initially) is that whatever you all decide, I'm not going to sweat it, but please keep the TFA blurbs in mind as you craft leads. Raul does have to bold and link something in the TFA blurb, and if you give him nothing, he has to come up with it on his own. Will you be happy with what he comes up with? He's got to find a way to bold and link to some version of "Interstate 70 in Utah", so try to assure that your lead doesn't make that difficult. I don't know how he comes up with the blurbs, but I'll be paying closer attention now to how he handles similar situations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is how he handled the TFA for Axis naval activity in Australian waters. The main problem on bolding the title on these particular articles is that we lose the ability to link the parent article and the state it is in without creating a redundant sentence that doesn't pass Criteria 1a. Since the article and TFA blurb do not need to be identical, I would imagine something similar to this would work: "Interstate 70 in Utah (I-70) runs east–west for 232.15 miles (373.61 km) across the central part of the state." The reason this works for the TFA blurb and not the article itself is that we need the links to Interstate 70 and Utah. We would either lose these links or be required to write a redundant opening sentence if we are required to bold the title. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent examples and explanation: OK, I'm unwatching here, since the application of WP:LEAD to FACs issue is resolved well enough for my purposes. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Participants list - finally

So I finally get some time away from AP testing to look at the changes proposed by my manifesto a few days ago. I only have time to make one change from the manifesto before I depart from Europe. To me, it seems like the most urgent change is the participant lists.

I specifically don't want to revert the project pages to the revisions with the participants list; first of all, the data should probably be put in a table on each page, and secondly, users have come and gone since then.

My idea is to create a table for each SH WP page with participants from each project on there. Editors of states without a WikiProject will remain in the table as they are now. Also, I'm proposing a separate section on the current USRD participants page for "national" editors who bounce around from state to state, so that they don't add themselves to 35 different projects. When a user does that, it adds extra clutter to the tables and is a pain to deal with.

I'm also going to propose that we spam messages to talk pages to verify that the information that we have is correct before we go splitting the tables with wrong data. Something like "Hello, our records indicate that you're part of the AL, AZ, and CA projects. Is this correct?" We could also use this to perform a roll call if we wish... --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a better idea than just keeping "editors of states without a WikiProject" in the current table would be to create tables for all 50 states (plus the IH and USH projects, plus one for national editors), then transclude all of them on the current USRD participants page, and transclude the state/USH/IH ones on the subproject pages if they exist. -- Kéiryn ^talk 00:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I like Keiryn's idea, otherwise it is impossible to sort the list with multiple states since only the first listed would sort. Man, AP testing, I am feeling old at the moment. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

State-specific interstate shields (again)

When I asked Dave this, he pointed me over to the discussion at archive 13. What I'm asking for is different though. I saw Oregon's shields that are now being used, and I thought they were a heck of a lot similar to the ones in use in Utah, if not the same. For example, Image:I-84 (Oregon).svg (which is the only interstate Oregon and Utah share in common). Before I ask the author of the images to make Utah interstate shields, I wanted some input. Do I need the exact Utah specifications or can I go ahead with the Oregon ones? We could ask the author of the images to make an I-15 image made with Oregon specs to see how it would work, if you'd like. Thanks, CL — 03:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:USRD Announcements

This is a new template to replace Template:Project U.S. Roads, which will no longer be maintained. Let me know if you have any feedback or if you know how to fix the full version... as I couldn't get the list into two columns. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The list is in two columns now, I hope that is what you had in mind. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just my $0.02

Consider this sort of a mini-essay. I really don't want to be part of a project that discourages people from working on it the way they see fit. If certain people are better at writing skeleton new articles than improving what's already there, then they should have every right to do so. Personally, I can't really bring myself to write new articles most of the time, so I work on improving already written ones. And while a lot of you like that, that also means that until recently Washington had a bunch of highways that had no article yet.

People writing stubs does not create more work for the rest of us. They're doing work that had to be done at some point. That's why I've started tracking a total wikiwork statistic, although due to the controversy that's now in the last archive, I haven't advertised its location. Worst case scenario is that in some editors' eyes they're re-prioritizing the work by "forcing" (term used loosely) people to expand the new stubs first. Whatever, they all need to be expanded at some point.

Stubs are not inherently bad. That's why Wikipedia:Stub exists – to help people develop and expand them, not delete or ignore them. If you see a particular editor creating stubs that are bad – ones that are poorly written, poorly formatted, etc. – then try to explain to them what they're doing wrong and help them improve. Do not discourage them from working altogether.

Despite the recent Arbcom, IMHO this project is in much better shape than it was this time last year. But there's still a lot of work to be done (regardless of which statistic you look at :-P), so we should welcome all the help we can get.

I know that a couple of you will disagree with me, but I just felt the need to reiterate my thoughts. That's all for now... -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, but there are some editors who do not understand what they are doing wrong, no matter how you try to explain it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, look at it this way. Say we have 5 poor articles in X project. Someone writes a new bad article. Now we have 6 poor articles to fix. That's more work. Of course, there's the chance that the new one will be B-Class right off the bat, but that's not what happens nine times out of ten. (For more about the early history of WikiWork and why it's set up the way it is, see User:Scott5114/A rebuttal to "The straight truth about WikiWork".) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How would that be more work than what was there before? At worst, the article is so bad that you have to start from scratch and that would equal to the amount of work you had to do before. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a finite number of route articles in any given state. That means that the sum total of work cannot change as the ultimate goal is to have every article be of a featured standard. That means that everything counts. You cannot exclude routes that don't have articles yet. It's work to be done, just like it's work to be done on improving articles from stubs. --Son (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've written an essay which expands upon what I wrote above. See it here. --Son (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way. Stubs are stubs, sure, but while it does take work to improve them up to B-class or above, a stub is better than nothing. While I don't think they should be kept in that state forever and must eventually be improved, they do provide at least some information that would not have been there had the stub not been created. So stubs, while still stubs, are not the biggest problem there is. CL — 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is such a perennial proposal. Do read my opinions I've written out over there, as they still apply. Anyway, I've heard they may be introducing new classes to the scale, so let's hold off on any changes until they get around to doing that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that both statistics (Ω and Я) are good measures – measures of different things. I'm perfectly happy maintaining both statistics as a compromise (even if I'm doing the latter in somewhat secret). I'm curious as to what new classes could possibly be added. -- Kéiryn ^talk 22:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kéiryn and Son on the subject of stubs. Stubs are not inherently bad; they serve a useful purpose. Poor stubs exist, but they are poor because of quality of the content, not the fact that they are stubs. When I began editing on WP:INSH, I was criticized for creating new stubs when existing articles needed to be improved -- notwithstanding the fact that the majority of my edits did indeed improve existing articles. At the same time, though, I wished to fill in the gaps in the list of Indiana highways by removing the redlinks, which improved the list itself. I'm not against competition, but I feel that avoiding and discouraging stubs primarily in the interests of competition with other projects rather misses the point of the project. Creating new stubs does not make more work for anyone; if we agree that the work ultimately needs to be done, then a stub is a starting point and is more than existed before it was created. Omnedon (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to come back to this and I know where Scott is coming from. Out project has a stub epidemic, no doubt. I have been looking at the numbers from when the leaderboard really came into being and how have we improved as far as stubs alone are concerned. I am using 1 January 2008 as our reference date compared to today. On 1 Jan, we had 6,555 stubs or 72.6% of our total articles. As of the last bot run, we have 6,154 stubs or 63.8%. Just by looking at the numbers, we are improving, but not at a very rapid pace. I believe the main problem for this is not due to the creation of bad articles, this isn't something we can really control anyway, telling someone they can't create an article is a bit unwiki in my opinion. Most of our stubs reside in a few states and I am going to do my best to start attacking these problem states and I encourage others to help out. You honestly don't need to have an intimate knowledge of a state to destub it; you don't even have to ever been to the state to help out. By writing a "route description" section, you are effectively destubbing an article and all you really need for that is a map. I am going to call the big problem states the "200 club" as they all have more than 200 stubs. They are Florida (418), Pennsylvania (395), Ohio (359), Texas (333), Virginia (322), Maryland (267), Georgia (241), California (221), Louisiana (210). Some of these will be easier than others, I know first hand that Texas is a pain since the state is so freakin big and there are a lot of long highways in the state. I am taking a break at getting any articles above B-class and will start attacking these stubs. Improving an article above B-class takes a considerable amount of work. If you are already working on one of these states, then help out attacking the stubs. If you are into creating new articles, don't add to the problem and create the new articles with enough substance that they aren't stubs. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Holderca, it really sums up my position quite succinctly. I'll add to that that it would be self-defeating to ban all new article creation—there are of course still a lot of articles yet to write. But we should do whatever we can do to encourage users to contribute by expanding the already-existing articles that we have. And if you must write a new article, shoot for B or at least start-class with it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

After looking through most of the posts in this thread I find I'm still rather puzzled by some of the comments made regarding stub-class contributions. Certainly a fuller, more complete article is preferable to a shorter, less complete one, but I don't fully understand why some users prefer no article to a short one, or seek to discourage people from contributing anything other than very polished and exhaustive pages. Even if a page includes relatively little information, it's still a start — a start that presumably would need to be made sooner or later if the goal is to have articles on all the major roads within the scope of the project. As others have correctly pointed out, the amount of work in the project is fixed, which means that a task that begins with a stub doesn't entail more work than one that starts from zero, it actually entails less.

Suggestions that one "shouldn't make the problem worse" by starting off with anything other than a B-class articles, or even that "if you must write a new article" make it a B-class, sound unwelcoming. At best it presents a grudging attitude to new contributions, and at worst actively discourages them. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Holderca, and to an extent, Scott's most recent comment above. Ideally, any new articles would be created at Start-class rather than stub, and it is fairly easy to do so. I say start instead of B because that would depend on the state – history for some states and some routes is easier to find than others. As long as we can reach an agreement that both expanding existing stubs and writing new quality articles need to get done, then we shouldn't really have any problems here. -- Kéiryn (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, certainly both are important. In my experience, very few WP articles pop into existence fully formed; instead, you generally begin simply, collaborate with other contributors and go through a number of edits in order to mold all the appropriate information into a strong, well-formed article. This being the case, directing people to either create B or greater articles or sit on their hands seems unfortunate. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 17:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Redirect-Class U.S. road transport articles

Assuming nobody objects, since it doesn't seem like anything anybody should really care about too much, I'll be going through this category, deleting the talk pages of redirects without possibilities (i.e., redirects which are simply rephrasings of the target page's name, and redirects created by page moves). That will leave the category much more useful, as it will only contain pages which might potentially become useful articles someday due to splits, which is what we really need to be tracking instead of just 'all redirects that point to USRD pages'. (For example, there's a lot of county roads that redirect to a list in there, and presumably they could be split back out someday.) If there is any useful discussion, I'll be sure to copy it to the current talk page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, those Wisconsin redirects. Have fun. --NE2 12:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Redirects from (for ex.) NJ 28 to New Jersey Route 28 shouldn't be tagged. Redirects from an individual county route article to the list article definitely should. I'm not sure about redirects from former highways to current ones – perhaps they should be tagged on a case-by-case basis. That is, if there's potential for a separate article on the former highway at some point, then it should be tagged, but if the former highway and the current one are virtually identical, then they shouldn't. -- Kéiryn (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, don't we have template:R from highway for this? --NE2 21:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that template's existence until just now. Well, let's pick one or the other to deprecate. I'd prefer dropping the {{R from highway}} template as it's used less. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been using {{R from highway in region}} regularly. I can easily use AWB to make a list of all talk pages tagged as redirects and add the template to the redirect (manually ignoring ones that don't need it). --NE2 19:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need both though? Something's going to get overlooked if every time we have a redirect it needs to be tagged twice, once on the page itself, once on the talk. Here's how I see it:

• {{R from highway}}/{{R from highway in region}}
  • Pro
    • Can create more templates to allow finer categorization
    • Easier to add when creating new redirects
  • Con
    • More difficult to add to existing redirects (must force server not to redirect by manually typing in URL with action=edit or redirect=no)
    • Less discoverable (since the only way you'd see the category at the bottom of the page is by forcing the server not to redirect)
    • Requires more templates
    • Happens in mainspace so there is a marginal risk someone will propose the template(s) for deletion citing a general R from whatever would do the job (as the cleanup templates had been)
• type=redirect param of {{USRD}}
  • Pro
    • Can be easily added to existing redirects
    • Standardized, tested, more in line with what other projects do
    • Only uses one already-created template
  • Con
    • Requires more work/edits when making new redirects
    • Can't really support fine-grained categories
    • Bulky?

I really don't have an overwhelming preference what we do, but we need to pick one system and stick with it because having two competing categories often leads to each one having articles the other doesn't. If we must keep the two methods, we need to decide what each of them is used for to prevent them from being 100% redundant with each other.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was saying I could help convert if we use only R from highway. I don't see how needing to go to the redirect page is a con for the R templates, since you have to go there and then to the talk page to see the USRD template. --NE2 22:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I type the URLs in manually; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Foo_Route_1 is shorter than http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?redirect=no&title=Foo_Route_1 ...that's the only way to actually get to the redirect page without having to go to the page, wait for the redirect target to load, click the thing at the top, etc. Yeah, then I have to click the edit tab, but I'm unreasonable in my usage patterns like that. If you want to take the initiative in deprecating one or the other, just go for it, I guess. Nobody else really seems to give a hoot. —Scott5114↗ (not logged in) 21:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The only time I've ever tagged something as Redirect-class is when I was performing a merge. -- Kéiryn (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Participants list (again)

Oops, went to archive before I had a chance to comment again.

While I like the idea of having a list of the "nationwide participants", there might be a flaw. Are we listing those members on the individual states too? I don't mean listing them on all 50 states, as that would be redundant, but I think we should list them on the states they've chosen to specify. In other words, there's no reason I shouldn't be listed on the Washington or New Jersey lists, or why Imzadi shouldn't be listed on the Michigan list?

Thoughts? If I get the green light, I'll go ahead and start helping with the process. -- Kéiryn (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the individual state-level projects should have their participants lists back. If someone only focuses on one state, then it doesn't make sense that they can only list themself on a huge list that covers all states. Editors who tend to focus on American roads in general, would be the editors who would simply join USRD. I think Rschen said something to that effect in his manifesto. I archived the Maryland list to a user subpage of mine back when the lists were merged, so I can easily restore that one if nobody objects.-Jeff ^(talk) 03:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. I'm just saying that most "national editors" shouldn't be members of just USRD, but of one or more state projects as well. -- Kéiryn (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, even if someone is interested in roads throughout the U.S. as a whole, their interest could still be concentrated in one or more states. So it would certainly help the individual state projects that they tend to contribute to if they added their name to those projects' participants lists as well as USRD's.-Jeff ^(talk) 17:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal

In the U.S. Roads Portal, the refs need to be fixed according to the citation template. This is if you want to make this portal featured. miranda 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you're talking about, since nobody seems to have nominated it for "featured portal" (why do those exist anyway?), and citation templates are not mandatory. --NE2 00:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. miranda 07:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Split of a road and its number?

Talk:Las Vegas Boulevard#Las Vegas Boulevard and SR 604 --NE2 13:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability discussion

Apparently someone decided it'd be fun to start a notability discussion without informing the relevant WikiProjects. See Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation), which I've edited to basically sum up the current USRD stance on what's notable and what isn't (with regard to numbered routes, anyway, Lord knows there's no way USRD could ever come up with a coherent statement on local roads). If this passes, WP:USRD/NT would probably become obsolete. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The big 10k

Can't believe nobody's remarked about this yet, but on 2 Jun, WP 1.0 bot recorded for the first time ever more than 10,000 articles tagged under USRD. We currently stand at 10,071 articles. We are about 0.4% of Wikipedia. So celebrate this milestone, but keep in mind that while we have written 10,000 articles, we have to maintain them, too. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Next thing you know, we will be just shy of 100,000 articles :P CL — 03:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully that will happen when we get all 10,000 of the current articles up to B-class or GA-class (A-class and FA-class would be nice)! — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 00:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Listing every single bridge on the exit lists

Is there a policy or guideline that states that the exit lists should include EVERY single bridge that does not have an article or even a name? I questioned the significance of its inclusion on a few articles such as [14] but was reverted [15] by the anonymous user on a 75.47.xxx.xxx dynamic IP address who apparently first put it there.[16] [17] Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Only significant bridges should be on there IMHO. Significant meaning toll bridges, or if it is significant enough to have an article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. I believe that only bridges that a traveler would notice should be included. This would include toll bridges, "signature spans", and well-known bridges like the Golden Gate or the Poplar Street Bridge. Everyday girder bridges, regardless of whether they bear "J. Random Politician Memorial Bridge" designations or not, shouldn't be noted in the exit list, as most motorists would simply cross the bridge with no special thought about it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Can this include "I-xx crosses the So-and-so River"? --MPD ^{T / C} 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's a major river like the Mississippi River, there is or should be an article about the bridge. Otherwise, unless it's a particularly impressive structure (for instance on the Chicago Skyway exit list we might want to note where the actual high bridge part is), I don't see the point in including it. --NE2 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Motivational Anecdote

Greetings fellow State Highway Projects contributors! I thought I'd share this motivational anecdote to spurn further work on our excellent projects. I was proof-reading a fellow student's Ph.D. project (it was some sort of literature/creative writing sort of thing; I'm not really sure, I'm an engineer). In one particularly poetic and flowery passage, the writer was explaining some detail of childhood travels, "driving north on 17." Immediately this sent off red-flags in my head... I have read and contributed to the NY17 article! I know its route! "I can't allow this thesis to be published as is!" And so, we went to the article on the highway in question and verified that this is in fact an East-West road, albeit with some north-south mileage. What is important is that we have a detailed resource available to check the facts. Wikipedia State Highways project has saved one author's reputation (with regard to minor factual details)! Imagine the horror if it were published as it stood - it could invalidate the entire body of work and destroy a career! I figure this is a perfect example of why we need these road article on every numbered route. It proves an invaluable resource - even to people who we would never expect to visit (literature professors don't fit my preconceived stereotypical road geek definition)! Nimur (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the writer did say only that he was driving north on 17. He could have been going to Flagstaff. :) - Algorerhythms (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(It was clear from other context that it was New York, I guess I should have mentioned!) Nimur (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I was kidding! - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Take that, deletionists! Another good example of what good USRD is doing in the world :D CL — 02:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good thing he wasn't talking about I-695... --NE2 06:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize this was meant to be humorous, but even if NY 17 were signed east-west on its entire length, I don't think it would be incorrect to say you were driving north from Suffern to Harriman. In fact, it might even be more correct than saying you were driving west! :-P -- Kéiryn (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Shields in infobox/junction list

{{RFCstyle|section=RfC: Shields in infobox/junction list !! reason= This has popped up at the New York State Route 32 FAC and has become a major problem within the project and there have been accusations of ignoring WP:ELG and bringing this straight to the FAC. !! time=22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)}}

The FA for New York State Route 32 passed after the shields in the infobox and the junction list was removed. Since an article is technically not completed until it is a featured article (I remember reading that somewhere), what does that mean for our 10,000+ articles that do use shields? My opinion, while I have the opportunity to opine, is that the thumbnail shields are useful in articles, and they do provide a degree of visual aid, though I suppose it's not very important. That's just my preference. I also wonder why this issue wasn't brought up in past road FAs and why in this FA, it had a deciding factor on it. CL — 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the above. Furthermore, FAC was wrong in imposing the sanction that we had to remove it at FAC, when this should have been addressed at a place such as WT:ELG, which this directive conflicts with. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, articles such as I-15 in Arizona and I-70 in Utah have passed to FA without this issue. However, I concur with the above opinions on the matter, but lean strongly to keeping them. --MPD ^{T / C} 22:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the argument presented at FAC that this is similar to the overuse of flag icons. The average John Q. Public can differentiate between Canada and USA without a flag icon next to each one. However, the average Joe Blow does not know the difference between CA-99, US-99, and I-99. One has to look no further than your local Sunday newspaper to see dozens of incorrect maps to car dealerships, furniture stores, whatever. In real life, I know of at least 5 signs hung by businesses and municipal authorities along the I-80 corridor between San Francisco and Sacramento that are flat out wrong. I DO see value in having correct shields in both infoboxes and Exit lists, due to the common lack of understanding about the multiple systems that exist in the USA.

During my FAC nomination of Interstate 70 in Utah, I was similarly pressured to change the lead for a version most people in the USRD community disapproved of. After several days of post passing battles, consensus was achieved that the original lead was more appropriate. Hopefully we can get similar consensus here. I would encourage all to debate and not revert. A revert-war ensued in the case of I-70, this both threatened the FA status of the article, and did not bode well for our community in the eyes of the NON-USRD participants in the debate.Dave (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Flags ARE NOT ROAD SIGNS! Guidelines written for use of flag icons shall have nothing do to with road sign icons, as they aren't even close to being the same thing! Put the shields back in NY 32. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've notified WT:ELG of the situation and the location of this discussion. CL — 01:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As an uninvolved reviewer, and having just read through the article's FAC, it doesn't seem to me that the shield issue was the deciding factor in that FAC. There was only one editor who actively opposed the article's nomination because of the shield issue, but even then, it was a secondary concern to the user's objection over image licensing (which was resolved). There were other editors who commented about being against the shields, but there was also one editor who opposed the article after the shields were removed. In short, there didn't seem to be any consensus about shields in that article. I believe the article would probably still have been promoted had the shields been left in anyway, as the consensus to promote seemed to be there (after some copy-editing, it seems). So I guess I disagree with the above assertions that the flag issue was a deciding factor in its FAC; certainly the FAC didn't impose any "sanction" about flags either. The nominators simply chose to address the concerns of one opposing editor by removing the shields. On a slightly tangential note, FAC needs more reviewers! :) As participants in USRD, your inputs would certainly be valuable in any road/highway FAC. BuddingJournalist 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image licensing was actually not resolved: commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Alps' Roads --NE2 19:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

C-class

Well well well. Someone probably knew this would come into play, but we officially have a c-class. Now the question is: What articles do we convert to C-class? On IRC, I was told the new "big 3" was gonna be this:

0/3 = stub 1/3 = start 2/3 = C 3/3 = B

Anyway, I know a lot of states have either 1 or 0 in their articles. So, what is the proposal that we do? Leave it up to each project is my guess. Let's discuss this.^Mitch32^contribs 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk about confusion... I'm wondering, would this be considered C-class? Right now it's at start. But now that we have that leaderboard, there would be an amount of discrepancy while the projects begin using (or not using) this new class. Besides that, I think a project-by-project implementation would work. CL — 22:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Here's my ideas. I propose that we actually have a Big Four: Lead, Route description, History, Major intersections/Exit list.
  • Stub= The article has been started. There's no sectional organization so it's all Lead. Alternately, the headings are in place but all empty/incomplete.
  • Start= There has been some expansion to split into the sections. At this level, there's a Lead and one other section, or two of the body sections with a very weak lead (maybe one sentence). As above the actual headings may be in place, but only two of the sections are done with two left to expand.
  • C-Class= The organization has progressed. Now three of the sections are substantially complete. As an example, the Route description and History are written. The Lead summarized the article well with an infobox. The variation of a junction list needed for this highway is missing.
  • B-Class= There are all four sections. The Lead summarizes the article with an infobox. The Route description covers the entire routing of the highway. The History is complete with all known major events. There is a junction list set up in a table. A B-Class article should only need minor improvements to be ready to pass a Good Article Review.
  • All classes above Stub should ideally be referenced since it is much easier to reference early and often than to go back and insert them. The references section is not listed as a part of a "big five" only because, IMO, it's so important that it should always be present. Of course, a junction/exit list set up like on Kansas Turnpike is an acceptable alternative to a tabular list. As such, it might not be a separate section but integrated into the Route Description.

Any thoughts? Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I propose that once we come up with the new classification scheme that we suspend updates to the leaderboard so that we can audit the project articles to accommodate the changes. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty decent, except I would make a junction list a requirement for C-class. I'd also keep the updates to the leaderboard going, just take it out of the newsletter until the audit is done. CL — 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Junction lists would just be another section of the Big Four. If an article has any 3 of the four it would be C. That could be an article with a Route description, History and junction list but no Lead, etc. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, Imzadi. Where would Utah State Route 34 stand right now? It has all the "Big Four," but I don't think it's qualified to be at B-class yet. CL — 00:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you really saying there's no difference between, say, U.S. Route 89 in Utah and Utah State Route 35? Both have the "big four", but the latter is barely (if even) B-class. --NE2 00:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Are the four sections complete? The only change in this scheme I proposed over that is the scheme now is that the lead is given a place as one of the essential sections. Now it's B=all of the Big Three, Start=two of the Big Three and Stub=one or none of the Big Three. Expanding this idea out gave me the idea that a fourth class would allow us to include a proper lead in the scheme for section counting, making a Big Four. If any of the Big Four are present but deficient, i.e. a section stub, or the section(s) need clean up or referencing, they're not complete and don't count toward the total for the number of sections of the Big Four. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me refine the idea a little regarding referencing since my idea and what I've been doing aren't exactly the same. If an article is inadequately referenced, I've been dropping it a class. In other words, if an article otherwise qualified to be a B, but it lacked references, I've been calling it a start now. So keeping in mind with that, I'd say under my proposal that if an article had 3 of the big 4 (lead, rd, history, junctions) it would be a C, but if was reference-deficient, then it was a start. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So an article with all of the "big four" but no references would be a stub? I don't think so... --NE2 00:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yeah. No article should be that well completed without referencing. Without proper referencing, any or most of the content could theoretically be challenged and could therefore be removed. Now some things would be silly to challenge, but the concept is still valid. If it can't be verified it shouldn't be in there. I think about the only except we've had until now about that was the basics of the RD didn't need references since any map would do, but that's been changing a bit too as we've started citing maps or atlases. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 77 doesn't look like a stub to me. --NE2 02:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) It doesn't look like a stub to be exactly either. The RD is a summary of state-detail articles, which themselves should be referenced. There are references in the History and that should be beefed up. As it stands, I would leave it assessed as a Start. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Why not do it simply: C is current B, and only those that are basically GAs but have not been nominated or passed are B. --NE2 23:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, that would make B-class redundant. C-class was created to narrow the gap between start and B, not replace anything. CL — 00:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if GA wasn't a bunch of bureaucracy, it would be redundant. --NE2 00:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is somewhat close to what NE2 said most recently above. If I controlled the world, C-class would be for any article that had all of the big three sections, but maybe those sections leave a bit to be desired. In other words, all the Utah articles that recently got demoted from B to Start would be C-class. B-class would be reserved for articles that at least in terms of length and comprehensiveness are ready for GAN, but still need some minor cleanup or have referencing issues. -- Kéiryn (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the leaderboard, which was mentioned briefly above, until I hear otherwise, I'll continue to update normally, and count any C-class articles that come up as Start. Another thing we have to figure out is whether C = 3.5 towards wikiwork (halfway between B and Start), or whether C = 4, Start = 5, and Stub = 6. -- Kéiryn (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Keiryn, my thoughts exactly for the Utah articles. As for the leaderboard, C-class was designed as bridging the gap from start to B, so my opinion would be to make it "weigh" 3.5. CL — 03:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like the idea of C having all sections, but incomplete. Basically, something which technically qualifies for B, but you'd be uncomfortable actually assessing as such. Tomorrow, I'm going to go ahead and update the WikiWork calculator with the following equation:

$\omega =a+2g+3b+4c+5s+6t$

This means that the 'new' WikiWork numbers will have 6.000 as 'rock bottom', and the numbers (at least in the 4–6 range) won't be compatible with the old numbers, but I really don't like the idea of assigning the new class with a non-integer point value just because it's the new class. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We've started filling C-class: Category:C-Class U.S. road transport articles --NE2 20:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Originally I was thinking C-class should be 3.5, but now that I've given it some thought, I actually like the C = 4 idea better. It makes B-class the perfect middle ground, with three classes above and three below, the final stop before it goes up the GAN/ACR/FAC ladder.

At the time I did the leaderboard this morning (sorry it was a day late), Connecticut was the only state with C-class articles so it was pretty easy to ignore them. (They were calculated as whatever they were assessed as previously.) Next week, I'll include C-class properly, even though I fully expect reassessment to be nowhere near complete. -- Kéiryn (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Mileage calculation on a one-way pair

Utah State Route 269 is a one-way pair on 500 South and 600 South (essentially 5th and 6th Streets). Because Utah streets are wider than in most cities, one-way pairs are very rare in the state, and UDOT counts both directions in the distance. The question is whether we should do this, or treat it like other states and measure in one direction only. Please discuss at Talk:Utah State Route 269#Junction list. --NE2 19:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadfan (which was moved from roadgeek because "Geek is such a nasty word...") --NE2 19:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

NY route description references

Despite the recently promoted FA New York State Route 28 using an "I Love New York" map, I seriously question the reliability of that map. First, it's much more efficient to use the Google map references to allow for editors to check the accuricy of articles. Also, Google maps show detailed local features which might no be included in the map. Recently, Mitchazenia removed the numerous Google references in New York State Route 22, and replaced it with the map in question. I'd like to know what everybody thinks about this. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless he verified that everything from Google is on the new reference, that should not have been changed. --NE2 17:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the I Love New York map (which based on the title, I assume is a Tourism Department publication) isn't a WP:reliable source? Care to explain your logic there? (Just because something is wrong on the map doesn't mean it's entirely inadmissible as a source; the official ODOT map has quite a few errors when compared to the control section map, which is basically the Oklahoma State Highway System bible, but it's still a permissible source.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am indeed saying it is not a reliable source. "I Love New York"? How reliable can an advertisement be? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question, Senator. Unless New York's tourism department is omitting counties on the map that make them look bad, you still haven't explained exactly what thought process led you to believe that it's not a reliable source. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My answer is it's an advertisement map. It would be the same to get a travel guide for New York and using it as a source for the New York article. And even if it is reliable in terms of accuricy, it does not include local features, minor changes in direction and such, as it is referenced to in many articles. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using a travel guide as a source, such as for the state motto. --NE2 21:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't exactly what I meant. I was implying that saying something such as "New York is the best state in the country", using the travel guide as a source would be troublesome. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the current issue? Are we saying things like "NY 28 is the best road in the country"? --NE2 22:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but we are giving information that I highly doubt is in that map. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but that has nothing to do with the map's reliability. --NE2 18:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm saying that it's probably not as detailed as Google Maps. Unless it has a Middleville inset, it wouldn't be a source for "The highway executes a 90-degree turn at the three-route junction." This seems to be an academic discussion, as Google Maps is once again being referenced. --NE2 20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did the refresher of setting new google map ref as a boost to the article. In my opinion, which I know Juliancolton doesn't agree, 35 refs looks horrible compared to 1 to prove the same point. Using the reference of Google Maps helps details roads better. If anything I perfer Yahoo Maps over that. Anyway, the point is, I used the map to cite things not necessary. If its anything, NY 22 and NY 28 both have Google refs now.^Mitch32^contribs 20:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need 35 references? Simply make one reference to Google Maps and reuse it. --NE2 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The 35 were removed for the above map because they looked rendundant - now its just 1 reference to google maps and used for that job.^Mitch32^contribs 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Historic aerials - a reliable source?

In an attempt to boost history articles for a limited number of routes, would citations to http://www.historicaerials.com/ be considered reliable sources? —Rob (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha that's awesome. I like how I can watch the evolution of an interchange from 1962 (1949!?- oh well, none of those roads even existed) to today. CRAZY. As for a reliable source, I mean, if we allow Google maps, we should accept this. All that would need to be provided is proof that the road is actually what you claim it is. I have no problem with it. --MPD ^{T / C} 19:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly reliable as long as it clearly shows what's being described. Just be sure to include the year of the aerial; unfortunately the site does not state the source of the imagery, so we can't cite that. Be careful if the aerial shows ongoing construction; it's not always clear what the final configuration will be, and the construction may be to replace a former configuration with a current one. --NE2 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

County road templates

Example: {{Major Routes in Fairfax County}} There are others. Also others that are actually built correctly. Moreover, those editors are sometimes placing them in wrong places[18], which I suppose can be attributed to an unfamiliarisation with where templates should be placed. Now, since the "roads in state" templates were all deleted some time ago (I think?), having five or six (or more) county templates doesn't seem like it'll fly. I don't know how many articles have these templates so far. --MPD ^{T / C} 11:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Bleh. I agree, and I think a better solution is to use the normal county categories. --NE2 01:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1248 of the articles assigned to this project, or 10.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Road meet ideas

I had the chance to meet a few other wikipedians at this past weekend's Chicago Roads Meet. I'd like to see if there's any interest in planning a possible 2009 meet for Wikipedians and other roadgeeks to get together for a weekend someplace. Any and all comments or suggestions are appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Second part, when would you propose to meet in your various cities? Is there a month or period of time you'd recommend specifically? Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oklahoma City

Earlier on IRC I had mentioned I'd be willing to host in Oklahoma City. Good things about it include a number of interesting things to look at (I-40 reconstruction—assuming ODOT gets around to having something to show by then, the Fort Smith and Amarillo junctions, the fairly-new OK-152 freeway, and other fun stuff), a central location, and some downtown attractions like Bricktown and the Canal for those who would like to do some kind of touristy things as well as roadgeek. Rschen also discovered that it's fairly cheap to fly into as well.

The cons are that the city has no real coherent public transit system, so a rental car would be basically required (though two or more people could meet at the airport and share a car and split the cost, or I could pick people up at the airport and shuttle them to the hotel or something, but that would mean you'd be stuck in the hotel). Also, if we were to hold the meet in the summer, May and June could carry the risk of severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, while in July and August temperatures can reach the upper 90s and 100s (and it's not a dry heat). During the winter, highs are usually in the 30s or 40s, and snow and ice are rare (but do happen about once a year or so). There will be wind year-round. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Baltimore

I'll float Baltimore as a possibility. I'm not offering to host though, just suggesting it. The main pros are:

• Plenty of roads editors live on the East Coast and would be able to make it without having to fly.
• Sightseeing: I-70 park and ride, U.S. 40 freeway (I-170), the harbor crossings, and the I-95/I-395 interchange.
• If clinching Interstates is your thing, slide down to Annapolis to take care of 97 and check out Annapolis' brick overpasses to boot.

Cons:

• Baltimore has a limited public transportation system, but BWI, the convention center, and Penn Station are all accessible from the light rail line, and any sightseeing will be done by car anyway so it shouldn't be that much of an issue.
• Being a waterfront city, humidity can get pretty bad during the summer. Also, snow and ice are a definite possibility during the winter.

-Jeff ^(talk) 03:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, it might be better to wait until 2010 to do Baltimore, by then the first section of the Intercounty Connector should be open. It would be worth it to hold off for another year to check that out.-Jeff ^(talk) 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

New Brunswick

Its really hard for me to get around anymore due to the high gas prices. If its possible, I will be willing pick people up from airports nearby, but I cannot afford leaving the Tri-State-Area (NJ-PA-NY). The reason I've chosen New Brunswick is because its the center of construction for NJDOT and there are numerous things to sightsee.

Pros:

• Same as Jeff's 1st pro - the amount of people.
• Lots of things to see, including some big construction projects (NJ 18 for example is being reconstructed).
• Numerous county and state roads to clinch in the area.
• Some cheap hotels.
• Lunch, possibly, if it was allowed, a barbeque at my house - or else I can find a location for it.

Cons:

• Probably not gonna attract Western roadgeeks.
• Weather is very tricky in New Jersey, gotta be careful.
• Some traffic issues.

If its possible, this is more to attract local roadgeeks and such. Hope we can consensus on this one.Mitch32 22:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

just dropping by--there are very active NYC [19] and Philadelphia [20] chapters that might be interested in cosponsorship. DGG (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Salt Lake City

Not offering to host, but the Salt Lake City metro area has a lot of projects going on, so this would be a good location.

• I-80 in Salt Lake would be done with reconstruction by 2009. It's being reconstructed with some fancy new bridge technique, so that would be interesting
• Legacy Parkway freeway would be done by then too. It features "quiet pavement" and lots of environmental stuff
• I-15 in the Ogden area (which is 30-45 min away) will be done with reconstruction by this time as well
• I-15/I-80/SR-201 interchange. This was constructed in 1999 but it's quite interesting
• Probably a couple of more projects that I'm not aware of...point is, a lot of new stuff will be done by 2009

Pros:

• The airport has the fewest delays in the nation (if that matters)
• Public transportation is good. You have FrontRunner up to Ogden, TRAX up and down Salt Lake, and the bus everywhere else
• Not as far west as say, LA or Seattle
• For clinching roads, you have I-15, I-80, I-215, SR-201 freeway, US-40 freeway up near Park City, Legacy Parkway freeway north of Salt Lake, and US-89 freeway up by Ogden
• The liquor laws are improving, trust me

Cons:

• The weather is...varied. It can be really hot one day (though it is a dry, non-humid heat) and really cold with snow the next. If it does snow, the snowplows are pretty speedy. Basically, summer is hot, winter is cold, and there isn't much room in between
• Salt Lake is still pretty far away from the east coast
• There are spots with bad traffic at times, though it is better than most other cities

Well, that's just a suggestion of mine. CL — 02:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• As for the time of year, the best weather can be usually found around late-September, early-October. This way, you're guaranteed it won't snow, but the temperatures do cool down to bearable levels by this time. I would recommend April, but there's always a risk that the winter of 2009 extends into May (as it did this year). CL — 20:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a change for us. The main question is whether an occasional {{fact}} tag is enough to bump it down to C. For example, does the lack of a ca. 1940 map disqualify Utah State Route 13? --NE2 05:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should. Perfect referencing is more of a requirement of the upper-half articles (GA and above). I'm not advocating entirely blowing off proper references, or accepting "My cousin Vern said that his derned brother-in-law Joey who works for the county road department said that there highway is 4 miles long" rubbish in B-Class articles. B-Class articles should have at least a few references, but not at the level that would be required to pass GA. Some blemishes like fact tags are OK for B-Class articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, because one fact tag → C-class is a recipe for arguments. One person adds a tag and bumps it down; someone else adds an unreliable source and bumps it up, the first marks it as unreliable and bumps it back down... --NE2 08:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point; I hadn't even thought of that. I do believe that an article which completely lacks references but is at a B-Class level of completeness (Big Three, etc) should definitely be a C-Class article, though. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

NY 32 makes main page!

I'd just like to say congrats to the respective editors of that page and to USRD as a whole. Now, one of our articles is there for the masses to see. This is definitely good news. Let's keep it up, eh? CL — 03:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that kills me is when it went up for FA, they made them remove the images from the JCT list... other than that, I love the article. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the reviewers really had no...well, I could rant, but you can't cut your cake and eat it (I am pretty sure I butchered that expression :D) CL — 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See Have one's cake and eat it too :p --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There we go! Thanks for the clear-up. CL — 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I-587 redirecting to NY 28

For those not watching WP:IH, please note a new discussion at WT:IH#Interstate 587. See also related discussions at Talk:New York State Route 28#I-587 and my talk page. --Polaron | Talk 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Combining SR article across states

New York State Route 343 in its current form also includes Connecticut SR-343 as a combined article. I like it. I've considered doing this with other articles. However, I think we need some guidelines first. For example, here are some articles that in theory could be combined into one. I'd like to solicit feedback on _should_ these be combined to help establish some guidelines. I've given my opinion where I have one.

CA/NV

• California State Route 88/Nevada State Route 88

Unsure, they have a lot in common, but enough could be written to have a GA for each.

• Nevada State Route 266/California State Route 266/Nevada State Route 264

Yes

• California State Route 28/Nevada State Route 28

Unsure, same as CA/NV 88

• California State Route 299/Nevada State Route 8A

Unsure, not familiar enough with the route histories

• UT/NV
• Utah State Route 56/Nevada State Route 319

Probably

• Utah State Route 21/Nevada State Route 487

Yes, virtually the same scenario as the NY article above.

• Utah State Route 58/I-80 Business Loop, Wendover Nevada.

Yes, If the articles existed they would be highly redundant.

NV/UT/WY

• Nevada State Route 233/Utah State Route 30/Wyoming Highway 89

Wyo-89 Yes, others unsure.

UT/WY

• Utah State Route 150/Wyoming Highway 150

Yes

• Utah State Route 43/Wyoming Highway 530/Wyoming Highway 515

Unsure, this is a similar scenario to NV-266/CA-266/NV-264 but the lengths are much longer.

UT/CO

• Utah State Route 46/Colorado State Highway 90

Unsure

Dave (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dave, for the last one, I'm assuming you mean SR-58. CL — 19:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed that as well as re-arranged them for better flow.Dave (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In theory, it works for Three digit Interstate routes, as it is the same road, and the same authority handling the route, but with the fact that these are splitting between the authority of two different DOTs and the fact that that, yes even though they are essentially the same road, they are not, as they are handled differently in each state. I would support though the Wendover, Utah / West Wendover, Nevada I-80 Business Loop as UT-58 is also listed as a business loop if I recall. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

States maintain Interstates... --NE2 01:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a case-by-case thing. There are already some cases where it's been done before, like in Delaware/Maryland Route 54. The best candidates for this would be routes that make more sense together than apart. - Algorerhythms (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of it is what can be written, A route in the middle of the desert has a lot less than a route of the same length in a mountain range or urban area. I'm not sure about most of those, but SR 299/SR 8A is a definite no; SR 299 was US 299, and SR 8A began its life farther east; only later did they connect. --NE2 01:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll throw in Utah State Route 59/Arizona State Route 389 as a good example. SR-59 was truncated and extended, permanently reaching the state line in 1941, but SR 389 was not designated until 1959. This might be a good example to work with because we can be sure about the history in both states. --NE2 01:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the reasoning I can see for merging is that it can be easier to discuss what's really one road without splitting it among two articles. --NE2 01:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A road that is a continuation of another state's route, and isn't really notable on it's own should probably be merged with the "main" route's article. There are also special cases where two state route articles should be merged equally, such as DE/MD 54 which goes back and forth between the two states for a good part of its length.-Jeff ^(talk) 03:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge: 59/389

I've tagged Utah State Route 59 and Arizona State Route 389 for merging. Please discuss here, including a possible name. --NE2 08:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what's so special about these two routes that they should be merged. --MPD ^{T / C} 12:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

They're two parts of a single corridor. I'm not sure if merging is a good idea, but it might make it easier to discuss the road as a whole. --NE2 12:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If those two routes are merged, I'm guessing the resulting article will carry both UT and AZ tags on its talkpage? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 20:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that I think about it, dual-tagging seems kind of like it could be a raw deal in some cases. Suppose that an Illinois and Wisconsin article are merged, and Illinois has the "dominant route" (it's the longer highway, and the Wisconsin highway only exists to connect it to the main Wisconsin highway system). A Wisconsin editor expands the Wisconsin portion of the article to the best of their ability. Now, what if Illinois lags in their expansion? We could end up with a stub (or other unsatisfactory assessment) categorized under the Wisconsin project when that project's portion of the article is Chairman Bob Approved, and the reason for the stub rating is because Illinois has failed to maintain their portion of the article. Which doesn't seem right. Perhaps the articles should only be tagged with the dominant route's state?—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then the Wisconsin editor can either deal with the loss of leaderboard points or actually help with a route outside the state. It's no different from something like U.S. Route 199. --NE2 08:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Easier said than done. I find editing outside my home state (for example, editing Texas articles) difficult due to a lack of knowledge about local geography and where to find sources. I edited a Wisconsin article last month, and was barely able to bring it up to start (since I haven't any history sources), and was only able to do that with the virtue of having traveled it myself.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like that big of a deal, considering we already tag multistate U.S. highways for the states they pass through. - Algorerhythms (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

But multistate U.S. highways can have state-detail articles created. Those are then excerpted to create the main U.S. highway article. When S-D articles are created, the main article is untagged from the state, having been superseded by the S-D article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My only problem with this merge, is what to call it. I dont think Utah State Route 59 – Arizona State Route 389 would be a very catchy, or easy title. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 16:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't support merging. "Two parts to a single corridor" is how NE2 puts it, but then where does it end? Do we merge nearly every corridor that crosses one- or two- state lines? What about corridors intra-state? I'm sorry but I just fail to see the benefit of merging two articles, with a few exceptions (DE/MD 54, for example). --MPD ^{T / C} 20:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also uneasy about the whole merging thing. Each route has its own history, and in the case of SR-59/SR 389, they didn't connect until 1959. Maybe SR-150 and WYO 150, they are both the Mirror Lake Scenic Byway and were probably formed at the same time (assuming by the same number). But just to keep things simple, we just might as well keep these separate, just because one route connects to another at a state line doesn't mean they are alike. CL — 20:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Even when routes share the same number, it's possible that one was renumbered to match the other, like OK-152 and TX-152 (OK-152 was formerly OK-41). I agree that merges of this type should be limited to only a few instances where it's obviously justified, like on the New York/Connecticut merge mentioned above.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Those two is not the same state? Do those two routes have same history. I've been trying to start fixing junction lists on Utah. I saw purple tag on that page.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 21:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

MA/CT merges

I am planning to merge the MA route articles listed below into their CT counterparts. In addition to a common number, my reasons for merging are: 1) the 1932 state highway renumbering which created the CT numbers also triggered the renumbering and/or designation of the MA side. Prior to 1932, most of the roads on the MA side were either not numbered or numbered differently; 2) in cases where one state wanted to renumber, for example due to a conflict with an Interstate Highway number, the other state also renumbered; 3) the MA side is relatively short and connects the state line to a single town center with no intermediate centers in between. My only concern is the article title and any suggestions on that end are welcome. If anyone has reasons not to proceed with these, please voice your opinion. I will probably proceed with these in the next few days. --Polaron | Talk 22:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Route 75 (Massachusetts) --> Route 75 (Connecticut)
• Route 83 (Massachusetts) --> Route 83 (Connecticut)
• Route 131 (Connecticut) --> Route 131 (Massachusetts) (the MA route number is older in this case)
• Route 159 (Massachusetts) --> Route 159 (Connecticut)
• Route 168 (Massachusetts) --> Route 168 (Connecticut)
• Route 169 (Massachusetts) --> Route 169 (Connecticut)
• Route 186 (Massachusetts) --> Route 186 (Connecticut)
• Route 187 (Massachusetts) --> Route 187 (Connecticut)
• Route 189 (Massachusetts) --> Route 189 (Connecticut)
• Route 192 (Massachusetts) --> Route 192 (Connecticut)
• Route 193 (Massachusetts) --> Route 193 (Connecticut)
• Route 197 (Massachusetts) --> Route 197 (Connecticut)
• Route 198 (Massachusetts) --> Route 198 (Connecticut)
• Route 220 (Massachusetts) --> Route 220 (Connecticut)

• • Funny, just last week I was thinking about the same thing, that the CT and MA routes be merged. I support this suggestion fully. I don't think that I can add that much to the suggestion. You can expand what has not been written yet for the MA portion of MA 168/CT 168, MA 186/CT 186, MA 187/CT 187 and MA 220/CT 220. What I wrote previously for MA 192, 193, 197 and 198 wasn't very much anyway. As far as titling goes, you may use any of these as possible models for the title: MA/RI 114A, MA/RI 121, MA/NH 286. Ed (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranch Road 1 --NE2 13:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadgeek (2nd nomination) - the process got kind of botched last time. --NE2 20:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to expand ELG's scope to non-freeways

A proposal has been made to consider expanding ELG to cover non-freeway junction lists. Please voice your opinions about the idea and how it should be implemented there. Thanks. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

New code makes Template:Infobox Interstate/Intrastate unnecessary

Now, if the type is I or Interstate, Template:Infobox road determines whether it's main or auxiliary. Please report any issues. --NE2 01:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The change is useful. Good job with it and thanks - CL — 03:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently the last one I'll be making if the template remains full-protected. --NE2 12:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

:::The main problem is that you get a cite error such as Interstate 80 in California and Interstate 280 (California) and the biggest problem is that former and future is not automatic showen on the list so the use this one is not currently worth it. --75.47.194.16 (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The error is because infobox road doesn't support "year_established" as an alternate name for the "formed" parameter. If the template weren't protected, I'd fix it... --NE2 12:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Well see the WP:RFPP for requests for unprotection. --75.47.194.16 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked the admin who protected it, but I doubt he will. It might be best to switch to a different name, and "keep one step ahead" by repeating whenever the new one is protected :) --NE2 12:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page for 3 days; move protection is still full. Let me know if you need an extension in the future. seicer | talk | contribs 13:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but it's still very sub-optimal, and breaks my flow, to need to request unprotection each time I want to improve it. --NE2 13:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks to seicer, you can now use the following for an Interstate:

{{infobox road
|type=I
|route=95
}}

The state parameter is only needed if it's intrastate (in which case it gives the normal links at the bottom). --NE2 14:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So what's the plan going forward? I noticed that a bunch of pages got their infoboxes changed from one to the other and back, and back again. Are we sticking with infobox road from now on? DeFaultRyan (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no comment on 75.47's actions, though the reverts were because he forgot to check that all subtemplates were created (they are now). I don't think there's any benefit to mass-replacing, since they do give the same output. --NE2 04:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• • it does not always work for Interstate bigs. States like Montana and Idaho use Image:i-00 (big).svg; and interstate for I does not work, so those should be kept on type=Interstate. I hope this settles 75.47; i always have to clean-up many times after his mess; he just makes a big fight when he disagrees.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 04:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • hiding your attacks does not help. Contributors check the history to find you what changes you made. ALso Montana and Idaho uses big text and high heights wide white text is closer to MUTCD today. The template is design that way, so you must leave it alone. You need to respect others opinion, even if you disagree with it.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 04:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Somebody, please semi-protect all Idaho and Montana interstate materials including the tempaltes. This is to avoid IP abouses like 75.47s keep playing games around. The infobox simply don't work that way, thats why I stick with paramtype=Interstate. he just blindfold random revert without asking us, causing me 3 times the work to clean it up.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 05:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think one guy can constitute sprotection, but I'll watchlist the pages currently using the "big" interstate shields and send the IP a message concerning this. Hope this helps - CL — 05:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Freewayguy, I saw your edit summaries on some of the reverts, which included all-caps (such as "STOP REVERTING IT; I HAVE TO COME BACK AND CLEAN UP YOUR MESS"). I know it's really frustrating to deal with people that absolutely won't listen to anything that you have to say. But, remember, the more friends we can get to help the various WikiProjects of USRD, the better. Yeah, sometimes it's hard to keep cool when you're dealing with a total dick, but still, we have to be nice. After all, it's Wikipedia :) CL — 05:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Actually NE2, its not neccessairly to change the infobox. The shield does not work for big white text, and its better to leave it and don't screw up the infobox.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 14:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Shields

Per /Archive 13#Shields in infobox/junction list, I believe that USRD as a whole supports shields in the infobox and junction lists. Would there be any objections to me adding the following language to WP:USRD/STDS? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

“ In the infobox's termini and major junctions fields, shields must be displayed before the name/link to other intersecting highways (e.g. K-10). If a junction list is present, it should likewise contain shields before the names of intersecting highways. (Freeway exit lists are required to have such shields per WP:ELG.) For concurrent highways, the shields may either come first ( I-44/SH-3) or next to the applicable highway name ( I-44 /  SH-3), but one style or the other should be consistently used within an article. ”

I have no problem with it. The second style for concurrent highways looks weird to me. I've never seen it done, but I haven't looked at every article either. No objections though. --MPD ^{T / C} 20:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think NY does that, but I'm not sure. Perhaps we should do away with it in favor of requiring all shields at the beginning of the line. WP:ELG does this: Note that shields should always be at the beginning of the line, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Not for use in general article prose: "Such misuse of icons in prose breaks up the continuity of the text, distracting the reader." I still don't agree that MOSFLAG applies to road articles, but it makes a good point here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the use of shields in junction lists and infoboxes is not inconsistent with MOSFLAG. As mentioned in the archived discussion linked to above, highway shields are an aid to navigation, particularly in long lists or tables. It is perfectly consistent with the "Appropriate use" section of MOSFLAG, especially since each instance of the shield is immediately followed by the name of the route. All examples of inappropriate use (i.e. decorative rather than useful) are when flags are appended to names of people or groups where the nationality is not important in that context. I think as long as alt text is added to all shields, USRD's usage of shields is perfectly within MOSFLAG guidelines. --Polaron | Talk 20:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Scott5114 cited specifically MOSFLAG because ( I-66 / US 17) doesn't follow the ELG section of "shields should always be at the beginning of the line", which cites MOSFLAG. But this is being considered for junction lists, so it can be different if we want, because MOSFLAG doesn't 100% apply to us. In addition to that, junction/exit lists are not "general prose." Also, alt-text isn't necessary if we link right after it as it would format like (I-66 I-66). But you are correct and I agree with the "appropriate use" clause, Polaron. --MPD ^{T / C} 20:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This separation between "exit lists" and "junction lists" is silly. An exit list is a junction list for a freeway. --NE2 04:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not really the topic of discussion... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

MPD made it the topic, and your comment is not helpful. --NE2 06:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer this not get off topic, since it makes it difficult to gauge consensus when that happens. If you want to see about merging them, feel free to start a new discussion. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll discuss it whenever it's brought up, thank you very much. --NE2 00:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the language is fine to me. I agree with MPD, the second concurrency style is a bit weird, and I've never seen it used that way. But the real issue here (well, not really) is what to do with NY 32 and whatever other articles have abandoned use of shields (I remember seeing a couple of others that don't use shields). If we reinstate the shields, will they lose their FA status? Surely not! Well, let's hope so. I think if I went ahead and re-added the shields to that article right now, nothing would really happen. But we can't do that now, can we? But anyway, go ahead Scott, I think your addition would be good. CL — 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As to the issue of what the shieldless FAs will have happen to them, I believe one of the FA criterion is that the article meet all relevant WikiProject standards. By having the shields in our standards, we have something to point at that's more concrete than one individual's (in my opinion, off-base) interpretation of the MOS. They should get the shields now to comply with USRD standard.

Okay, I'm going to instate the text provided above into the standard now. However, we should definitely continue discussing the second concurrency method. I think we should probably allow only the first method, since it's widely used and having only one permissible method keeps everything more uniform. The first method also promotes better harmony with ELG and the consensus seems to be that it is better aesthetically. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good Scott. I mean, we have FAs that have shields, and we've been over the NY 32 issue before in a different discussion. I'm not worried. --MPD ^{T / C} 05:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this settled and prefer the shields present; I believe the FAC argument against them was that they were solely decorative, but I have always held that they are indicative and identifying. Even so, I've stayed out of this one. If they weren't, then we'd drive down our highways and see the equivalent of street signs instead of reassurance shields for all routes. Fwgoebel (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is irrelevant

One project's standards still have to conform to Wikipedia policy, which includes MOSFLAG, which is explicitly about "flag icons and similar images". So it does apply 100% to us. All Wikipedia policy applies 100% to us. I think personally the FA reviewers who insisted we pull the shields from that article (SandyGeorgia and Elcobbola, who, BTW, are active and respected contributors to not just FAC but FARC) ought to have been invited to weigh in on this, or that this discussion should have been held on the MOSFLAG talk page. Or both I see nothing above that indicates how shields in either the junction list or the infobox "help the reader than decorate" beyond one editor's belief that they do. And, given my attempt to bring this up on the talk page, I am a little perplexed that I wasn't asked to participate. The first I heard of this was this note from Mitchazenia on my talk page, and then this edit to NY 32. I also read above of "one individual's (in my opinion, off-base) interpretation of the MOS". I really hope I'm not the one meant. Putting this in our standards does not help one bit if the standards conflict with policy.

I really don't see how the article could be defeatured over keeping the shields out, considering that it was a condition of getting the FA star. I do see how a FARC could be started over playing games like this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the individual interpretations of MOSFLAG that people at FAC were using. "Similar images" depends on people's interpretations of "similar", and I feel that including shields under that heading is off-base. Flags aren't the primary means of identification of a country, they are just one of many symbols that define a country. However, highway signs are: you are more likely to encounter just a than the actual words "State Highway 74" anywhere out there. See also Polaron's comment above regarding the utility of these images.

The fact of the matter is that FAC follows from standards established from consensus. It does not establish those itself. The consensus at USRD is clear that we want the U.S. highway articles to have the shields. Speaking for myself, if FAC will require that we make our articles crappier by stripping the shields out of them, I just won't submit articles to FAC anymore. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

But signs are the primary means of identification of roads, which is what we're doing articles on, not countries. They're analogous in this context. Daniel Case (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have started the discussion where it should have been held, at WT:FLAG. For the sake of everyone, we need this cleared up at the right place. The project's consensus is clear, but either we use it to generate a change in policy or we do not implement it. Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

See SandyGeorgia's comment on this here. We do need a broader discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously template:jct should be changed if we decide to get rid of them. Here are the arguments I've seen and remember:

• They're unnecessary decoration.
• Readers who aren't familiar with the various abbreviations may be familiar with the shield designs.

I think, based on the latter argument, I would support keeping them in. I would, however, oppose their use in lists of highways like List of state routes in Arizona. --NE2 07:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus at WT:MOSFLAG seems to be that MOSFLAG does not cover our use of shields. I think we can consider this done. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh... apparently the section above this one was not irrelevant. --Son (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Michigan reassessment

I came across the following edit summary in my watchlist today...

"MSHP isn't currently using C-Class"

As far as I can tell, we have a pretty clear consensus in the previous archive of what the standards are for C-class, so this is something that's not left up to the individual states, right? -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know...I mean, they are their own WikiProject, not a task force, and the message delivered to all WikiProjects under USRD (like the one at WT:MISH, "Reminder from USRD") says

USRD, in most to nearly all cases, will not interfere with a properly functioning state highway wikiproject. All projects currently existing are "properly functioning" for the purposes mentioned here. All task forces currently existing are not "properly functioning" (that is why they are task forces).

At the same time, it says

However, this is a reminder that USRD standards need to be followed by the state highway wikiprojects, regardless of the age of the wikiproject.

But is the C-class adoption mandatory? After all, C-class was meant to be optional. By the way, for those who don't know, it was me who reassessed that slew of Michigan road articles. CL — 16:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been mostly off-wiki dealing with my moving and new apartment here since the beginning of the month. I haven't ben following stuff as well as I used to and probably won't for a while. I'm sorry if I erred, but MSHP hasn't had a discussion yet as a project over C-Class, and I wasn't sure that USRD's usage of C-Class was exactly binding nor what set of standards USRD had decided to use regarding C-Class. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally I'm all for states doing there own thing, particularly when it comes to minor things (colors in the junction list being the prime example). But I think assessment is something that has to be done nationwide, for a couple of reasons. First, WP:MSHP (or of course, any other state subproject) never had separate assessment standards before C-class (at least not since we've changed over to {{WikiProject U.S. Roads}}, WP:USRD/A, and the like), so why would they now? Also, the way {{WikiProject U.S. Roads}} is set up, it puts all the articles in Category:U.S. road transport articles by quality, and I think it's pretty important for all the articles in this category to be assessed under the same standards. </$0.02> -- Kéiryn (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment should be done the same way, nationwide. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the current de facto status of one importance/class for all subprojects, it would be kind of hard for a project to entirely eschew C-Class. --NE2 03:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Roadgeek up for deletion, again...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadgeek (4th nomination) --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 00:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It survived five days without going through another AfD? I wish we could all just get it over with. CL — 01:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears that it was speedy kept due to the nominator being a SSP. Now, lets start the counter again! --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Towns Along I-95 by County and State

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Towns Along I-95 by County and State --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversible express lanes in Seattle, Washington

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reversible express lanes in Seattle, Washington --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on some of the California interstate pages

There seems to be an edit war going on out in California over some of the Interstate highway pages there, specifically the exit lists. I've directed the participants of the war to discuss on WT:CASH, but I'd like to get anyone from the greater WikiProject who is interested involved in the discussion as well. Thanks for your time. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Two items on WT:USH that require feedback

FYI, there are two items on the talk page for the U.S. highways Wikiproject that need more feedback, both generated from the reviewing of U.S. Route 491 as this is the first U.S. Highway article to reach A class review and FAC.

1. A page following the suggested code to the letter will not render correctly with the Safari web browser. This hasn't been noticed before.
2. The navigation box is included with the main infobox for single state routes, but at the bottom for multi-state routes. Some editors have opined and are making mass changes to move the navigation box to the main info box for multi-state highways without state specific articles. Request to nail down a standard for this situation. Dave (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See also

Per project standards of WP:USH, every article is to have a Related routes as part of the "See also" section with links to the parent and sibling highways. This is being challenged as redundant at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 491. I have started a thread on WT:USH. Please opine there. Dave (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Template:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Scope of US-road articles needs to be expanded and deepened

I come here straight after reviewing New York State Route 373 at FAC. Please see my comments about what I believe are missed opportunities to provide our readers with information of greater depth about the economic and cultural significance of a road. Tony (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Most roads have no cultural significance. When was the last time you heard a song on the radio about Oklahoma State Highway 133? In fact, I can only think of one road in the entire state that I know of having any cultural significance at all. (Toby Keith has yet to romanticize the Lake Hefner Parkway. :P) As for economic impact, without a study or article done about that specific highway's economic impact for a specific area, you're treading dangerously close to WP:OR territory. (Isn't there an FHWA report out there somewhere which says that building roads for their economic benefits isn't recommended due to the negligence of said benefits? Or am I misrembering?) And of course even surmounting those problems you'll run into the inherent problem of most roadgeeks finding pop culture and economics extremely dull... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The only time I have heard of something like that was the band "Highway 373" which was named after a provincial road in Manitoba (see Manitoba Provincial Road 373).Mitch32^(UP) 16:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that it was the Port Kent and Hopkinton Turnpike (that should either be linked in the article or redirected), surely there's something in local histories about that? I do, however, question the inclusion of historical stuff that's not actually related to the route, such as the ferry crash and VT F-4 once being state-maintained (the latter of which is not sourced). --NE2 17:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirected the Turnpike to NY 99. The ferry crash can be removed, and that I have a map coming in - which will hopefully mark VT F-4 (the once continuation of the ferry route).Mitch32^(UP) 17:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the map label VT F-4 as a state-maintained highway? --NE2 17:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And why did you redirect to NY 99? It appears that a separate article might be necessary, given that it includes parts of NY 458, ex-NY 99, NY 9N, NY 373, and a few unnumbered roads. (Did the turnpike take Kent Street out of Keeseville?) --NE2 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Its in the mail currently - I won't know for a few days - but by its looks, it won't be done by then.Mitch32^(UP) 18:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So what source did you use for the statement that VT F-4 was given to the town? --NE2 18:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, google, but I can re-source it, as soon as I have confirmation - but VT F4 is currently the last one not to have an official route, yet.Mitch32^(UP) 18:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Google is a search engine. What site did it find for you? --NE2 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think VT F-4 was ever a state highway (i.e. a state-maintained road). In fact, none of the state numbered routes within Burlington are state-maintained. --Polaron | Talk 23:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - then the article's rather misleading. --NE2 00:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Temporarily - since it mentions the turnpike and retains the name to this date.18:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Every road has "cultural and economic significance", although some may not be worthy of treatment in WP on that basis, and such significance may not always be found in external sources. The thrust of my point was that there are opportunities to find external sources that may contain relevant information on the local, human aspects for at least some of the roads that are the subject of FAs. Does the WikiProject have a grip on how to locate oral histories (written or audio) in local libraries, and more scholarly accounts of the development of communities that are en route? Advice to this effect would help to introduce a sense of how to deepen the treatment in the articles. Nominations are being churned out at a great rate, and it has come to a matter of attempting a deeper treatment, beyond the travelogue aspect that typically dominated the text. This is inadequate in its coverage of any aspect other than what you see out of the passenger window. Tony (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If I might toss in my proverbial $0.02 here, I think some of that you're seeing comes from one single subproject, Tony. The two highway articles I've worked hardest on and nominated for feature had some significance to them beyond personal significance. The first I nominated was on M-35, which had a history I found interesting. The second was on the longest trunkline of its type, M-28. Now both have some personal significance to me as well since the former ends in my hometown and the latter just today I travelled for over 100 miles (161 km) to get to my hometown, a routing I followed many times between the two peninsulas of Michigan on many, many trips. Some of the other FAs nominated have also held some personal investment for their editors, but I think some of them are being churned out a bit assembly-line fashion with feature topics in mind. I respect and appreciate the work it takes to bring a collection of articles up to FA standards to make a FT work, but I hope that the goal of a FT doesn't mean the quality of the individual articles suffers.

As a side note, when prepping the M-28 article for GA, it was mentioned that the section on the Seney Stretch was "unencyclopedic" and it should be removed. Having driven that section of highway many dozens of times in my life, I knew that there was significance to including it. Many tourists and locals alike like to complain over how boring the highway is. I think is something along the lines of what you're trying the point the project at doing. Finding something unique about the subject matter that goes beyond mere mapping directions and landmarks. Every road has straight sections, but not all of those sections get articles in big city newspapers. Each village/town/city has shaped the road and been shaped by it, and these stories need to be included more often. Am I far from the mark on this? Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Every road has 'cultural and economic significance'"—I do hereby challenge you to tell me what exactly that is for Oklahoma State Highway 133 or Oklahoma State Highway 87. Your pick. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Scott, here I'm guilty of relying merely on logical inference: every road that is built changes patterns of transport, both of people and goods. It can't help but affect the economic patterns and personal mobility of the area, and in historical terms, is almost always connected with patterns of commerical/residential development. I'm not saying that this can always be uncovered by WPians, or is worth adding, but I am concerned that where there are sources for such roles of roads, they might be considered as vehicles for enriching the information in at least the FA nominations that are being churned out. I can't provide the information for those two specific roads: it's not my field and I live ten thousand km away. That is why you people are potentially so valuable to this part of the project. Tony (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the exact reason I picked those two roads is because they're some of the least-used roads in the state of Oklahoma: SH-87, for instance, has an average annual daily traffic count of 180. (This is extremely low.) This low traffic count is probably due to the fact that after SH-87 ends at the state line, Arkansas (the next state to the east) has the road that connects to it swing north and end at the Arkansas counterpart to SH-3, which SH-87 parallels in Arkansas. That makes it basically redundant with SH-3, so it's kind of questionable why SH-87 is still state-maintained. Given all that, and the fact that this road is in the isolated rural territory of Southeast Oklahoma, it's probably readily apparent that any cultural mindshare the road has is going to be pretty negligible. (Unless of course some songwriter happened to live along the highway in his youth and romanticized it in song, or a writer chose it as the setting of their book, etc. But I don't know of any occurrences of that offhand.)

Now, if you're more interested in talking about the impact that the road has had in a more general sense, we could probably do something about including the environmental impact that the road has had, at least for more recently constructed roads. That would be a lot more feasible because many projects are required to have had an environmental impact statement (EIS) prior to construction. Those could probably be requested under the Freedom of Information Act from the state DOT in many cases. (However, I think EIS requirements are a relatively recent innovation, definitely instituted no earlier than the middle of the last century. Many of New York's state routes were originally constructed as nineteenth-century toll roads, so there would be no EIS for those, of course.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

←Thanks—the environmental, where chronologically feasible, might be following up. By "cultural", I wasn't referring to specific output such as music, but in the broader sense of the sudden connection of a previously remote or isolated settlement with other settlements and the outside world; that would be most applicable up to the mid-20th century, I guess. What I'm suggesting is that the WikiProject assist editors by providing examples of what kinds of documents might be available, and where they can be found. I suspect that there's a good deal tucked away in local histories in hard-copy (libraries, I guess), but not much on the Internet. That is, of course, an issue, but librarians are often extraordinarily helpful on the phone when it comes to making local history available, especially when it might be sourced by one of the biggest sites in the world. Tony (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

New deletion debate :-)

Found another navbox in my watchlist today. Is consensus still not to use these? See Wikipedia:TFD#Template:State highways in Illinois -- Kéiryn (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, yes. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We need help!

Okay, well two areas of USRD need urgent help! Here they are:

• Newsletter - We need another feature (story) to publish in the July/August edition.

• A-Class review - We need more votes!

Please help with these parts of USRD especially the newsletter, because the last issue was late, so we need to get back on schedule. Thanks! ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the newsletter is really essential and it should probably be discontinued. The large amount of effort spent on it seems to be a waste, considering the people who care about the events that transpire within the project are usually those who participate in the events and thus already know what happened. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Funny how, as USRD got larger, the Newsletter got forgotten. It's been collecting dust for too long and the editors currently involved have been mostly alone. Let's just wait til next month's issue, I'm the featured member and Utah is at the top of the leaderboard CL — 04:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that it's time to discontinue the newsletter. However, perhaps it could be replaced with a single news page written sort of blog style – that is, whenever there's a story that would have been covered in the old newsletter, someone can just write it and post it to the page at their own convenience, rather than having to deal with deadlines and whatnot. Certain things like the member/article of the month could still stick around – either as part of the new news page or elsewhere.

Regarding the ACR, I've purposely been avoiding reviewing so that I could remain neutral for closure (per discussion on the talk page), but if my input is requested, I'd be more than happy to provide it. :-) -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe instead of a newsletter on Wikipedia, we could have a blog. WikiProject Oregon has a blog (right here). I have already created a test right here. ~~ ĈĠ890100^{Review me!} 16:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what Kéiryn was saying, except that it would be on-wiki. --NE2 17:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating a Facebook page like bands have, on another note... --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think an on-wiki blog would be easier because that way people could watchlist it and check it without having to go to a different site.

The facebook idea doesn't really appeal to me all that much since it would mean merging a Wikipedia identity with a real life identity. But if other people are into the idea, it could certainly be a good collaboration tool. -- Kéiryn (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean a good way to point people to onwiki collaborations --NE2 04:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that goes without saying. Poor choice of words. :-P It goes without saying that Facebook = IRC. -- Kéiryn (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably would not replace the newsletter. IMHO we should finish the current edition of teh newsletter since things are somewhat laid out and then go to a blog format, with featured editor appearing every month. --Rschen7754 (T C) 14:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I will write a farewell article to tell this is the last edition. ~~ ĈĠ890100^{Review me!} 21:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - I made a final farewell article and someone could publish the newsletter. I am too busy with Interstate 82's GAN nomination. ~~ ĈĠ890100^{Review me!} 21:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

another option would be to combine the portal and newsletter in a single project. It's mostly the same people who work no both anyways.Dave (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Except the portal has been even more dead than the newsletter... *rolls eyes* -- Kéiryn (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A really important, and final decision

It's been clear for some time that different members of this project have incompatible visions for where to take things and how to proceed. Perhaps the decisions that have led to 59 GAs and 9 FA/FLs (and the 2 FTs that came with it) really don't scale well, and the result may be a net negative for some of the other 49 states. I hope you pursue these decisions effectively. Yet it has also been clear for some time that, as productive as the New York portion of the project has been, resulting conflicts have rendered New York State Highway article development less productive than it could be. Morale has been damaged on both sides. For several months now I've seriously contemplated separating the New York portion of the project, so that both sides may pursue their work with minimal tension. Because I did not wish to increase tension or "drama", this was not something I posted openly. It probably would have had the unintended effect of appearing to be an ultimatum. Now it is clear that this really is the best route to take for the New York highways, and I hope it is equally beneficial for the U.S. Roads project. This announcement wishes you well, and is made in the hopes of establishing friendly and cordial relations between WikiProjet New York Roads and WikiProject U.S. Roads.

New York's project has grown such an exponential amount since its creation, and I must say thanks to who has helped it. Thing is, its really time to move on, for NYSR, for USRD, and for me. This project has enough to sustain itself, and has much more room to grow. If you want me, I am always contactable on IRC or my talk page, but I will be leaving the USRD channel on IRC. There are a few people I would like to give a big thanks to, especially ones who have helped me. The first is User:Polaron, a really nice guy who was always there for me. He has access to some great history, and it means a lot to me. He is a very benefical member, and I really hope that he would come with me on the fresh note. The second is User:Daniel Case, who helped me a lot with the project, especially on the Hudson Valley, I do wish that he come as well. The final person I'd really like to extend my gratitude is to User:Juliancolton, someone who has supported most of my actions within the project, and is to this date, a really profilic contributor to NYSR.

Of course, none of this could be started without User:TwinsMetsFan. He did so much to build this project up from the bottom, and I, along with the project will never forget his work to help us much. Now, as a final goodbye, I'd like to say that other than the big issues I've had with USRD, I still enjoyed what times I could get that were fun. However, most of those times are gone, and its really time to look into NYSR's future, along with mine. So, I'd like to say goodbye, and walk off from USRD with NYSR on my shoulders. I really have thought this through, and you may not agree, but it'll cause a lot less stress on us. Thanks for all, your time with me around.

All the best in your endeavors,

Mitch32^(UP) 23:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds pretty similar to my own views. The only difference with me is that I've seen MDRD as being separate from USRD since Day 1. My view is that if a WikiProject is a WikiProject (and not a task force), the parent project should simply let it function on its own and not worry about it, which would result in less stress for both projects. I wrote an essay a while back about my feelings on this. Mind you, I was still fairly angry at USRD back then, but once you get past the USRD bashing it pretty much sums up my feelings on how each project is a separate entity that should run itself. Good luck to everyone in NYSR on standing on your own two feet!-Jeff ^(talk) 00:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye. Everyone here at USRD will miss you so much! You've done so much for NYSR and USRD as a whole! Goodbye, and have a fantastic day. ~~ ĈĠ (☺ - Review!) ^Simple? 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just wanted to add in that I'll be going with NYSR and leaving USRD, as well. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(double-ec)Hmm, never saw this coming. But I agree, no other project on USRD comes close to NYSR. There are definitely valid reasons for the split. So, one less competitor on the leaderboard :) Although you will be a full stand-alone project, hopefully you and the others over at NYSR will pop by here once in a while. I wish all of you over there best of luck. Do I smell a new newsletter feature coming on? CL — 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly won't be leaving until I get Washington State Route 531 up to FA. Again, farewell and have a great day. ~~ ĈĠ (☺ - Review!) ^Simple? 14:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm not exactly sure this is even technically possible, and even if it is, then good luck getting the people outside USRD to understand what you mean that NYSR forked off from USRD or whatever. Secondly, and most importantly, this means that NYSR is ineligible to use the USRD facilities such as ACR, the maps task force, shield creation, etc. I will visit those pages and close any outstanding NYSR requests. And before you say those are useless because they're inactive, in ACR and GA's case, it was because people were holding back reviewing NYSR things because NYSR would flood them with requests without contributing reviews back to non-NYSR articles, so a lot of people privately decided to stop reviewing NYSR articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, NYSR can just as well create its own amenities, including ACR. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You go do that then. 5 discussions closed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it just a tad pointish to close all of NYSR's discussions before there's been any official splitting of the two projects? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The section heading is "A really important, and final, decision". If you guys consider it really important and final that you're splitting off, why wait to close it until you guys get around to making an {{NYSR}} tag? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This split seems like disruption to make a point, except that I don't see what the point is. --NE2 21:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no point, and we're not trying to make one. USRD as a whole, through its dramas, problems, and disorganization has made it difficult to contribute to the project. As such, NYSR, one of the most successful subprojects, is splitting up to allow its regular editors to comfortably work without the aformentioned road blocks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How is being part of USRD affecting your ability to write articles? --NE2 21:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already said. USRD has it's seemingly daily dramas, fights, edit wars, and bottomless discussions, not to mention the consistent insularity of the project, as well as the endless unnecessary rules and regulations, which slow us down rather than help us. In general, NYSR needs room to grow. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Aside from the fact that there doesn't seem to be any "daily dramas, fights, edit wars, and bottomless discussions" on this page, even if there were, why couldn't you simply ignore it and write articles? --NE2 21:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because when attempting to write articles, USRD always seems to finds a way to make you wrong. I don't believe there's any other way to put it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you're talking about, but I'm starting to suspect - you want lower A-class standards? --NE2 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No. A-class is A-class. We want room to grow, and our own standards for notability, structure, and other things. Also, we want less relation and the recurring drama with U.S. Roads which has slowed in the first place because of the behavior of several of its members.Mitch32^(UP) 21:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconding the above, no, A-class has nothing to do with our actions. If nothing else, USRD has developed a poor reputation, especially within FAC, that New York's article-wtiting contributors want to distance themselves from. Take for example, the NY 32 shield debate. Numerous Wikipedia standards clearly discouraged using flag-like symbols, but I suspect there's a feeling that so long as everybody followed USRD's standards, the problem is solved. This is my last post. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't the FAC problems been with New York articles - 32, 373 (above on this page)? --NE2 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it has been over USRD standards, putting the project to get some of this as well.Mitch32^(UP) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How was the NY 373 thing over USRD standards? --NE2 21:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, 373 was my fault - but let's see - 32, 174, 28 (first nom) have been examples.Mitch32^(UP) 22:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) Well, on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 174, I see someone saying that the article didn't mention anything relating to natural features, and you said that it's because USRD doesn't require that. That's a cop-out. Just because something's not in the standards doesn't mean you shouldn't mention it. --NE2 22:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think we've gone far enough about this, and I don't care personally what some of you guys think because of the way some people here in the project have treated me. I wanna split for the point of making the project grow and get better, not to cause disruption or to prove a point. I am making my decision final, and Juliancolton proved his is too. Some people will welcome with open arms, and some won't, obviously. You gotta think, why not let them try? You never know what can happen. I have seen a lot of the stress USRD has put on users, and its becoming too much for me.Mitch32^(UP) 22:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yay, drama! This is what keeps me away from here :) Strato|sphere 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be on the TNT cable network. :P DanTheMan474 (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the status of NYSR, these are still within the scope of USRD, so edits like [21] should not be made. --NE2 17:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

GAN

Splat5572 retired recently but has two articles outstanding over at WP:GAN#Transport: Interstate 780 and California State Route 149. These articles are within the scope of this project, so I'm letting people here know so that if issues come up during the review somebody may be able to do something about it. The articles are not currently under review but are numbers 1 and 7 in the list. Nev1 (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I passed Interstate 780 for GA. ~~ ĈĠ (☺ - Review!) ^Simple? 02:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I also failed California State Route 149 because of lack of pictures and prose. ~~ ĈĠ (☺ - Review!) ^Simple? 21:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In FACland this is called a "Drive-by nomination". They are rejected, unless someone who is willing to work on the article joins as a co-nominator. IMO that is what should have happened here. I disagree that I-780 meets the good article criteria, in my opinion it needs work.Dave (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I also disagree with the quick-failing of California State Route 149, which IMO compares favorably to Interstate 780. Please read up on the GA criteria, CG. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm willing to "co-nominate" as I wrote the articles. --NE2 17:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What purpose does this page serve?

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Quality articles IMO this page can/should go. It appears not to have been updated in years, yet it's occupying space on the project infobox. Dave (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, how about this one Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Subprojects/Status, similarly out of date. Dave (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can take this to MfD? Still, I agree it needs to go. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 16:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the idea of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Quality articles, and I'll be happy to update it every so often. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll could help with updating A-Class or GAs. In fact, I'll go update parts of it right now! ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!}

BTW, I updated the list with new FAs, FLs, and A-Class. Someone else could fix the chart and add other GAs. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 18:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuke it, even as it is now CG, its still not right I-37 is not a FL and List of Interstate Highways in Texas is not an A class under interstate. We have categories for this, and even a map that gets updated occasionally. We don't need this additional redundant source. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it the usual way of dealing with outdated pages to mark them as historical and remove template links that point to them, like in the Article Improvement Drive page? They don't necessarily have to be deleted outright. - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I say mark them as historical and remove the links as Algorerythms said. That's how Wikipedia: scoped articles are usually "deleted" so that non-admins can still go back and view them. That said, we don't need either of them to remain active. The assessment categories replace the quality articles page, and the subproject status page is unnecessary since subprojects are now more or less responsible for themselves as suggested in User:Rschen7754/Manifesto.-Jeff ^(talk) 22:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like consensus is not delete, but flag and remove from the template? I concur with this. Computerguy, your efforts are noble. But the page is still out of date and is redundant with pages that are automatically updated, i.e. Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Utah_road_transport_articles_by_quality substitute Utah with your favorite project. Errors I can see in this page include, U.S. Route 66 is no longer a GA (not even close), California Route 37, U.S. Route 50 and U.S. Highway system are not A class. Missing a ton of GA's, I-80 in NV, UT-279, just to name a few. Dave (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about the interstate shields

I noticed that many internal templates regarding interstate highway shields and their state name are being changed, mostly by no one in particular (*cough*), but I'm wondering what's the point of all this. When they're sized down to 20px wide, you can't even see the state names. Sometimes, when they're that small, the different format of the highway number may cause the number on the shield not to be seen well making the shield pointless. All this extra work seems unneeded to me and the fact that you need hundreds of different shields instead of just about 100 creates a lot of wasted bandwidth when a simple standard interstate shield would suffice. Just my $1,147,630,883. —Mr. Matté (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been curious about the same thing as of recent. I believe in the past, consensus was to use neutral shields in the boxes and other instances where the shields were that small. On some intrastate routes (such as those in California), they uniformly used state-name shields, even though the older renditions made it harder to see the number sometimes. I believe the number issue has for the most part been solved, but the issue of not being able to read the state at 20px remains. However since there seems to be no reversion of these particular edits, then consensus is that they remain. I don't think the bandwidth argument is a solid one, but I can't prove it. So... other opinions? --MPD ^{T / C} 02:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should probably use the uniform neutered shields as much as possible for the simple reason that then we don't have to determine which states use which shield (which can get kind of hairy for those states that don't publish their sign specs where we can get to them easily). Freewayguy likes using the aaroads map, but it's not an reliable source and in fact is wrong in a few cases. Then there's the whole "impossible-to-read-at-20px" thing. I think the reason nobody's done any reverting is because there's nothing really wrong with it, or at least not enough for anyone to want to go through the trouble of contacting him and deciphering the resultant reply. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an anonymous editor that has been going around systematically changing every 20px image he can find to the state-name version: Special:Contributions/66.66.117.141... - Algorerhythms (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A while back in this discussion, I cited the same reasons given above as a reason to never use state-name shields for 20/25px icons. Someone suggested using a larger number, but as far as I know, this doesn't conform with the MUTCD. I think that states that primarily use neutered shields, but have some state-name shields can use the state-name shields in the article body but not the infobox, while states that primarily use state-name shields (such as California) should use them in the infobox, but even they shouldn't use them as small icons.-Jeff ^(talk) 13:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggested the larger number, but that was only because the current state-name shields we had were from 1972(?) and so had smaller numbers, while the newer versions (1979 i think) had a larger, more standard number. So our images were out of date and needed to be updated. But that discussion can be brought later. I agree with the above. In a state-specific article, I don't mind putting a state-name shield as the route's shield in the infobox, but other than that, I don't really see a reason to use them elsewhere. --MPD ^{T / C} 17:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• new Mexico and Kansas don't seem to have a state document, so it must be based on USDOT. 2003 MUTCD updates uses smaller number over blue part of interstate when earlier uses bigger text. The ones Jeff makes is actually updated. I've notice 75.47 likes to use Google St View, i've noticed 75.47 IPs have gone through and add state-name specific on alot of templates even if alot of shields hadn't exist yet. he's too uncivil anyways, I'm too lazy to war over him, anyways state/neutral is very small thing and nobody cares, it's just a waste of time to war over it. Arizona specific state-name on state document, but the specs they have uses E Series on blue prt the white text is bigger. When I asked ltljltlj to upload shields he does both normal and metric versions os state-name specific. is how the shields suppose to look like anyways.--I-405 (Freeway) 04:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Now we have 100s of state-name specific at least one on every state. It's best to at least have one used somewhere, 2003 MUTCD wants the text in blue part of itnerstate to be smaller. Yellow and green US shields have once exist in Flor, so those cannot be deleted. I would just not worry about it because nobody cares how the interstates look like. Either we use it or not is not important. Wiki is not a safe websites, even IP can change it and mess up MOS.--I-405 (Freeway) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

IP cleanup help

I just discovered this, but I'm about to go to bed, so I can't deal with it right now. 66.66.117.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be going around to the interstate articles adding directional banners above the shields. I'm pretty sure this is against ELG, so can we go through and check and revert their edits when necessary, and someone send a message to them that we'd prefer they not do that? Thanks. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it. Part of me doesn't care. Part of me does. Definitely it is testing the limits of WP:MOSFLAG, and in some case, is incorrect, by adding shields to intersections where the highway is unsigned (For example on Interstate 70 in Utah, UT 76, UT 94, UT 118 and UT 161 are not signed but are now shown with shields).Dave (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have added a Template:uw-test1 at the IP talk page. I noticed Freewayguy is getting upset for having to revert all of the edits 66.66.117.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is pouring in. I am letting Freewayguy know that I added the warning to the IP talk page. Sswonk (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sick of undoing all his changes that IP made. It is siply violation of WP:ELG by adding blue, green and white plate. Exit list is not for traveling guides. Somebody, please clean-up all his changes and 100 more. I spent alot of time clearing the exit list to MOS.--I-405 (Freeway) 04:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Honestly, Wiki is not a safe place. This is what happens when Rschen7754 is out from Wiki for a while. Many people just violates WP:MOS, and nobody is there to clean it up. We better let Scott5114 know this, 6666 IPs adding plates on icons.--I-405 (Freeway) 04:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• let's put the newest comment on bottom. it's easier for us to find. 66.66 IP continues to make similar changes by adding blue, white plates to every shield highway icons, display N,S,W,E.--I-405 (Freeway) 23:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• i can't deal with it much since I'm in school now and I have alot of other stuff I have to deal with, and having too many on my plates. But violatng WP:MOS is a big problem. We should let imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) know this otherwise his violation of WP:ELG is going to grow. Semi (gray) locking it won't be fair, but this has to stop.--I-405 (Freeway) 00:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I can't do much more than you guys. I'm not an admin, so the only thing I can do to help is rollback the edits when I'm online. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• i gave that IP a uw-vand4, coooooontinuos violation of MOS counts as vandalism, and it will not be tolerated. The next offense I will issue the brown column is the uw-4IM, the fiiinal warning and the next step is a block. This seriously needs to stop!--I-405 (Freeway) 02:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Did some standards merging

Since WP:IH and WP:USH's project pages included structure standards, I merged them into the USRD standard so we don't end up with a bunch of standards drifting apart and contradicting each other at some point in the future. Like the original merge which resulted in USRD's project standard page, this also serves to avoid putting off new users by reducing the amount of stuff they have to read.

Here's the diff to the change. I'd like a few people to review it to make sure that I have the community's approval on this, that the flow is okay, that I didn't miss anything, and that this stuff is still considered to be the standard. I plan on getting the infobox standards merged sometime soon as well. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree this was the right thing to do. USRD does have a lot of orphaned an outdated stuff to prune. I did spot some minor omissions. I'll keep going through it.Dave (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD discussion

I have nominated Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in the United States for renaming here. If you have any comments please contribute to the discussion. Also the parent name might need changing, so if anyone has some brilliant suggestions please comment on that. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Nope, it's not in New York! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massachusetts Route C1 --NE2 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for U.S. road transport

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record:

• Interstate Highway System
• Interstate 5
• Interstate 10
• Interstate 35
• Interstate 80
• Interstate 90
• Interstate 95
• United States Numbered Highways
• U.S. Route 2 (for some reason this is listed in New York, the most insignificant part of the route)
• U.S. Route 66
• U.S. Route 101
• California State Route 1
• Holland Tunnel
• I-35W Mississippi River bridge

I guess if anyone needs something to improve, these are there. --NE2 00:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion that involves you

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WikiProject secession --NE2 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is here. NYSR made a "really important and final decision" regarding their status within USRD. We're only respecting that decision by allowing them to proceed with it. I wish them the best of luck, and I'm truly sad to see them go, but it was their decision, not ours. I will welcome them back at any time, but for now, this relationship is being separated. They filed for divorce, let us let go peacefully. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though I'm not editing, I find the idea that a project can secede pretty ridiculous. Since no one owns a wikipage (or a set, thereof), seceding does not improve the editing atmosphere as it is purely a political break, one of which doesn't really have any effect on anything whatsoever, but whatever floats your boat I suppose. Strato|sphere 21:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

When you file for divorce, it doesn't ussually go a way peacefully!! -- Carpetmaster101 21:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Adam, Julian & all of the other NYRD Editors will be back soon enough. DanTheMan474 (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean that USRD has to give half of its stuff to NYSR? :o Strato|sphere 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No. You do not have to, its completely voluntary for anyone. Dan, please stop saying that - I've gotten a lot of non-USRD support for this move, and we don't know what could happen.Mitch32^(UP) 21:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh it was a joke regarding the "divorce" Personally, I think you all are just bored.Strato|sphere 21:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yech. I begin a Wikibreak and this happens? I should have stayed longer just so I could get involved :) Anyway, are we really getting our panties in a bunch just because of this? With all due respect to NYSR, this secession is mostly on paper. All you will do is change the tagging on your article talk pages and attempt to cut ties with your former parent project. However, you'll see that people from other states' projects will still gravitate around your goings-on, whether you like it or not. I don't see the value in wasting time doing this (in you trying to avoid all the "drama" that goes on at USRD, you have created it yourselves), but to each is own. Let's just remember that life on Wikipedia shouldn't inhibit your daily life and that getting into silly little disputes is wholly unnecessary. If NYSR would like to cut ties from USRD, let them. Who are we to stop them? You might not agree with it (I sure don't), but other people do. Will the split of NYSR affect CASH, MSHP, PASH, UTSH, or any others? No. So let's get on with our lives, and let's keep improving our articles. CL — 21:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I was working on something for them and then when I was 80 % done, they tell me that they don't need the help. -- Carpetmaster101 21:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What? The recent discussion was removed because of this.Mitch32^(UP) 21:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I just hate how everyone is fighting over this stuff. It was calm until you decide to go and leave. Now everyone is fighting again. -- Carpetmaster101 21:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not point fingers. After all, almost all the time an entity of a larger body wants to split, rifts occur (with the possible exception of Czechoslovakia). Don't blame anyone if it's the last thing you do. CL — 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Village pump would have been a better place to take this; they deal with policy / other issues like this there, and there is nothing an administrator can do about this. (The administrators at AN were a bit snippy though, from reading the discussion...) --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02

Greetings all. It's been a long time since I've written such a detailed post. My $0.02, it's time to really change USRD. I think it's become too much a federal system and it needs to be a confederate system. USRD truly needs to be an umbrella. Have simple standards throwout that aren't already in the MoS and be done with it.

I'm sure USRD isn't as active as it once was, and that's part of the point. The drama's really gotten too much on this project and it's affected everything. PASH is virtually dead as a result. Valuable editors have chosen to leave USRD or leave Wikipedia. I've semi-retired. I keep tabs on things and that's about it...a few comments now and then.

I've read the discussion over at AN/I. Go figure it would end up over there since it's about roads. Fact of the matter is that NYSR should do what it's done. It's better for USRD to become a confederate system (like it once was) rather than a federal system (which it became). If you got a problem discuss it in the state WikiProject, not here. If it affects multiple states, provide a link of the discussion here and keep the discussion over there.

I get what NYSR has decided to fork. I tried something similar some time ago with WP:USST. I have been accused of creating the project with the intent of shucking off articles because it hurts the project. I didn't create the project for that reason - I created it because we kept seeing all these articles for deletion about local roads, and I didn't think (and still don't think) that USRD was the appropriate forum. So, I created WP:USST to have a place for people to work on local roads. I intended on that being completely independent of USRD because I felt like the scope of USRD was to wide to appropriately address these roads.

USST was practically still born because of the controversy with scope at the time. I was driven away from editing and ultimately the project was aborted in the first stage. PASH has more or less died as a result of that controversy as most of its editors stayed away from editing road articles.

And now, here we are, with NYSR forking. Let them. Who cares what tags are on it. I don't even think there needs to be a USRD tag unless the state project is either dormant, dead, or just doesn't exist. If it is active, let the projects tag themselves to the article. If NYSR follows USRD set guidelines (it obviously has to follow MoS), then the project will work just as fine on its own with its own tags. And I say good for them, at least they're actively doing good for the encyclopedia.

--Son (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I started a scope discussion earlier this year with a proposal that would have done much of that same thing. Let USRD run the newsletter, set basic standards and run ACR/Assessment criteria. Let the state projects run the rest. It was shot done over various proposals to merge USST in under USRD and nothing was decided. Right now, I don't like that NYSR is separate from USRD, but if this is the first step in some greater reforms, and it's brought back under USRD in another form, that's ok in the end too. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is really, really not the right thing merge USST with USRD, the simple reason being that USST should be a playground for road editors to work with city and state editors. Local roads are simply too local, in my view, to belong in such a broad scope. --Son (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Input from User:Jeff02

When I founded WP:MDRD, I never intended for it to become a part of some other WikiProject, I merely intended for it to be a place of collaboration and of sharing of ideas and work. In that regard, it succeeded in its early days. We settled on a naming convention before SRNC, and I introduced Maryland's SVG shields that successfully replaced the old PNG shields which were created by at least two or three separate editors using fairly inconsistent styles. I involved myself somewhat with USRD in the early days, but distanced myself from it after SRNC and focused on MDRD. It wasn't long before USRD began butting in though. First it was the infobox, a minor style issue; after some discussion, I myself made the necessary changes. But then it got worse. The USRD banner replacing state road project banners effectively gave USRD control over the scope and assessments of those projects, and not too long after that, participants lists were merged.

I honestly feel that USRD's intervention with its child projects has caused stress for a lot of people, and this stress is leading to lower productivity. Like I said in my essay "The Purpose of WikiProjects", disagreements that have resulted from this stress are wasting precious time that could be better spent editing articles. If a project wants to change the way it operates, such as doing its own assessments and creating its own banner, then let it. USRD's responsibility should be to determine style guidelines that apply to roads in the United States as a whole, and for maintaining articles under the USRD umbrella that do not have a WikiProject or are on routes that are particularly notable to the United States as a whole. USRD is not responsible for maintaining its child projects.

From other comments I've seen here, this view seems to be pretty much the consensus. It's time for other editors to acknowledge this and let the child projects such as NYSR do thier own thing.-Jeff ^(talk) 21:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree with this. I do not intend this to be redundant to what I wrote in the my two cents section, however my sentiment exactly mirrors Jeff02. I created WP:PASH with the same intent this user did, and I feel that it is really USRD-related issues that has essentially killed the project. Drama within USRD drove editors away, and several of them were PASH editors, and very strong ones at that (even if they didn't contribute often).

Additionally is the ever controversial USRD leaderboard. While its intentions were never ill, while it promoted editing to improve project statistics, I think it had an unintended effect: to focus more on USRD, less on state projects, make users feel despondent for groups they participated in, and create controversy. I really think the leaderboard had more of a negative impact in the long term scheme than the short term. Focusing more on USRD was an additional mistake, in my view. Just like the leaderboard, the long term effects of a strongly centralized USRD versus the decentralized USRD it was previous, has been bad. Drama built up within the confines of the project and now many editors have moved on to greener pastures, including an entire project.

Some centralization of USRD is good, but it has long since been bureaucratic and it needs to return to its former form. --Son (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the merging of the participants' list has to do with USRD butting in; wouldn't this just be more of a convenience issue?
• IMO the leaderboard has motivated plenty of projects to expand and clean up (UTSH and MSHP would never be in a content-improvement drive if it wasn't for the leaderboard). Without it, no one would have any idea as to where each project stands. Of course, I've only been here since March. What exactly has the leaderboard done that is controversial? CL — 04:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It's put too much emphasis on decreasing the "stub count", something certain New York editors still care too much about, leading to ill-conceived merges and redirects. --NE2 07:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think taht UTSH and MSHP may have improved, but I think the quality of USRD as a whole declined. Prior to the leaderboard, things were chugging along like everything else has. Prior to the leaderboard, PASH was some what active. Now it isn't. Controversy surrounding the leaderboard, not a prime reason for problems, still has not helped keep editors working on articles in the project. --Son (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

When I arrived last year, I worked on improving existing Indiana road articles, and also creating new articles to fill in gaps and remove the many redlinks from the highway list. I was quickly told that I should not create new stubs until existing articles had been improved, although I was in process of doing both. In another situation, Rschen7754 (the same user who complained to me about stubs) told me not to add points of interest to highway articles. When I pointed out that this was explicitly mentioned on the project page's list of items to include on road articles, he promptly and unilaterally removed that item from the list. These are rather trivial occurrences by themselves, but they are the sort that can push people away. Both speak to me of an effort to maintain an high level of control, higher than is appropriate on Wikipedia; from what I've seen in discussions here over time, I think this is one major factor that has led to the drama that has been mentioned recently. Omnedon (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The participants list merging was convenient for USRD maybe, but not for the state projects. If we wanted to see everyone who participates in our project, we would have to go to another project's participants list, sort it by state, and even then we might miss some people because they participate in other state's projects. Also, I like how when someone joins WPMD or MDRD, it shows up on my watchlist. I could have added the merged list to my watchlist, but then anyone who joined any state project would show up. And I do feel that this counts as butting in, because it was USRD changing the way other WikiProjects operate; even task forces are able to maintain their own participants lists. Of course this is all beside the point now, since the merging has been reverted, but this does at least give a historic example of USRD's excessive control of other projects.-Jeff ^(talk) 16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You can try and blame the leaderboard for the problems with some of the projects, but that's just a cop-out, considering that many states like Utah and Michigan have been more successful after it was introduced. In fact, the wonderful condition of Michigan's articles at the moment originated from a challenge I posed to Imzadi to raise Michigan to the top of the leaderboard. He did so, and look at how the project is faring now.

The stub count should absolutely be lowered, and it should absolutely be a top priority. I've gone over why stubs are undesirable time and again; I need not rehash those reasons once more, I am sure. However, if people are doing outright stupid merges, no matter what their motivation, they should be called out and made to justify them. Stupid merges result from bad decisions by editors. Leaderboards don't kill WikiProjects, people do. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Scott's opinion

Here's how I think this should all be set up. I'm about to go to sleep so I'm probably a going to make it a bit blunt.

1. Consistency between articles is necessary as it makes our articles more professional, makes what each article needs to be "finished" more easily determined, and makes off-topic stuff more obvious so it can be split off or extracted as needed.
2. USRD sets the standard for what should be in articles, their structure, etc. State editors should watch for these debates and get involved when they have an opinion. (Simply watchlist this talk page.) If the state editors have a problem with the consensus here they should bring it up here. WP:CCC. State editors which don't like a standard can start a new discussion with their new points; perhaps they see something the rest of us missed. Don't just rebel against a standard. Discussion happens at this level to promote consistency between states.
3. Usually the standards established through a discussion have had several points about them debated and the standard established with good reason and thought put into them. When states decide they don't want to follow this for whatever reason it is upsetting because they are going against a well-vetted standard which has had thought put into it. It makes the hard work put by the original drafters toward achieving consensus seem futile.
4. Most collaboration should take place at the state level.
5. States should use the USRD standard as a base platform and try to be in harmony with it as much as possible. States should make modifications to the standard to resolve situations where the USRD standard doesn't work well for their individual state's quirks, or where the USRD standard doesn't address something particular to that state needs addressing (e.g. how secondary highways should be covered).
6. USRD provides support as articles reach the upper half of the assessment table. USRD provides ACR to vet the articles before going to FA and check them against the standards.
7. Establishment of new WikiProjects should be handled by USRD so as to prevent explosion of stillborn WikiProjects. USRD should reduce any clearly inactive project to task force so that the benefits afforded to state projects (home rule where possible, ability to determine where it's needed to diverge from the USRD platform etc.) are not extended to a vacuum. State project benefits could be abused by drive-by editors in the absence of an established editor corps.
8. If the above is followed it draws a clear line where USRD's and the state's roles lie. Conflict should not occur with a clear scope defining where one project begins and the other ends. USRD should not interfere with well-behaved WikiProjects by forcing them to do things such as merge participants lists, etc. When something due to its nature needs to be rolled out across the country, like assessment, states should try and cooperate unless they have a good reason not to. Don't be contrary or isolationist just for its own sake. Nobody likes a hermit. Consideration should be given to centralization where it could be more convenient to all parties and should be objected to if a valid reason why it would be undesirable exists.
9. USST should continue to exist, and act as an interchange between roads editors and those editing on topics in local history. Should not be a subproject of USRD because of the difficulty of writing standards to apply to both highways and local roads. As USRD's main function would be standards-setting this would mean there would be little benefit to putting USST in with USRD. Ideally USST could provide upper-level support similar to USRD.
10. Whining about the leaderboard needs to stop. If you don't find it useful, just ignore it. If someone's acting stupid, call them out for acting stupid, not for using the leaderboard. It is just a metric and if someone's behaving irrationally, it's their fault, not the leaderboard's. Trying to do away with it leads to divisiveness and takes away from those who find it a useful tool for gauging progress.
11. More effort should be made to resolve things in-house wherever possible rather than running to AN/ANI all the time. People should be less combative and more open to compromise and changing their opinion for the sake of consensus-making. People running to AN/ANI reflects badly on the project as well as the hobby in general and makes us look like more like an episode of Family Feud than a WikiProject. Except we don't have the cool theme music or Gene Wood, so we're inherently worse than an episode of Family Feud.

Generic statement tying this all up so that I don't have to put my signature on a numbered line. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding point 7, say people interested in roads in Delaware start a state-level project for that state. Should USRD members go in and yell at them because USRD has the exclusive authority to create state-level roads projects? This is the kind of control I'm talking about. I do agree that USRD should determine general style guidelines though, however, state-level projects are responsible for refining those guidelines to fit to their state's needs. This not only includes adding more specific things, but also ignoring things that don't exactly fit in with their project's articles. In short, state-level guidelines should be based on the USRD guidelines, but do not have to conform exactly to them.-Jeff ^(talk) 18:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of these points are self explanatory. I think what Jeff has said is accurate to my opinion. --Son (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, that's what I mean, adding and removing stuff to tailor the standard to fit the particulars of the state's system. Removals should of course be mentioned on the subproject page. I do think that deviating from the standard should be kept to a minimum as much as possible, and only when there's a compelling reason to do so specific to that state, not something like "well, we just don't like putting street names in parenthesis so we're not going to do that". If you merely disagree with the standard, even though it would work for that state otherwise, it needs to be discussed with the rest of the project—maybe the dissenters have something to say that the standard drafters missed, or perhaps the standard drafters were looking at it from a point of view that the dissenters didn't consider.

I would grant that having USRD establish new projects is perhaps unnecessary, and could probably be done away with. (I'd like to see Rschen comment on this specifically, however.) However, I do think that it should have the ability to absorb obviously defunct projects (by demoting them to task force). After a project becomes a task force, USRD would then serve as a "guardian" of the articles, ensuring any articles out of standard are cleaned up to meet the standard (USRD standard as well as MOS and Wikipedia policy), and patrolling them for vandalism. If the project regains a dedicated following, they can request re-promotion, and most of the time it should basically be rubber-stamp approved. (The only time I'd suggest denying the request would be if one user appears from nowhere, edits for one day, and then wants repromotion.) The Utah project started out as a full subproject, was later demoted due to inactivity, and after gaining momentum again was repromoted. It's now at the top of the leaderboard. I believe this shows that the demotion and repromotion system works quite well to sort of wrap up a state and put it in the fridge to keep it from getting moldy.

One question I'd like to put out there for those in favor of more subproject rights: what should be done in the situation that an obviously active state subproject veers badly off course? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No disrespect Scott, but personally I felt Utah could be where it is now even if it wasn't demoted more than a year ago. It just happened that a couple of editors living in Salt Lake City discovered UTSH and began contributing. Would this have not happened if UTSH was left an independent albeit severely decimated project? It probably would. I just see demotion as an official transfer of jurisdiction to USRD proper. During the one year span that Utah was demoted, who from USRD tried rescuing the project? No one. It all started with Dave I believe. Then a couple of editors appeared as well and voilà, promotion and now one of the top projects. I guess it depends on how you look at it (which, for me, might be distorted now as I am about to hit the sack). But I do appreciate the attribution to what UTSH has become CL — 06:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the definition of badly veering off course? I've already said that USRD should advocate simple standards (like the infobox). If veering off course refers to the project lapsing into inactivity, it's tagged as inactive. I don't think USRD absorbing inactive projects has done anything but avoid the presence of inactive roads projects. I think CL is right, UTSH grew because editors showed up and started editing, not because every USRD member said "Let's revive Utah!" --Son (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple standards just don't work. The simpler a standard is the more variations on it are possible and then you get articles so divergent you may well not even have a standard. WP:USRD/STDS as it stands is somewhat lengthy but other than that I think it addresses what needs to be addressed without going too far.

By veering badly off course, I mean a subproject is writing articles which go directly opposite of the existing standards, perhaps even the MOS or Wikipedia policy. Does USRD still have no right to "invade" and set things right because of the project's rights? What if we attempt to do so and are rebuffed? Should we still give up and allow the articles to fester simply because it belongs to a subproject?

You guys didn't really get my point about Utah—I wasn't saying that the project was successful because of demotion, but rather that its success shows there's no harm in projects being demoted. In fact it may have helped by giving the articles under its banner extra attention and protection against vandalism. (And I did do a rewrite on a Utah article while it was a task force...) Whereas if it's just tagged inactive it's more likely to just sit vacant and unwatched, the way the Kansas project had been before its demotion. Success came to Utah because of the renaissance of editors—but that would have been needed to recover no matter if it had been a task force or just tagged inactive. I guess what I am trying to say is I have yet to hear a good argument against task forces other than it somehow tramples the rights of a dead project. (Nobody's there to care...it's dead. If it wasn't dead it shouldn't be considered for demotion.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case, you're right. Demotion does no harm and if anything, helps it even if it's in a small way. There's no reason to abolish demotion of a dying project. CL — 22:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell me this, what subproject is going to badly veer off course? To me that sounds like not assuming good faith. I honestly believe that if USRD was a better operating project, we could use USRD as a forum for discussion and common standards. But the NYSR situation shows that USRD isn't the appropriate forum at this time. Do you see NYSR radically changing from USRD standards because it can? I don't.

What I see happening is that people have moved away from this project. To me, the negatives far outweigh the positives. And I think everything that Jeff02 has said throughout the discussion related to this is spot on. I think he's done the best thing by keeping himself away from USRD and working on MDRD. --Son (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please answer the question, Senator. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If a project isn't adhering to the MoS or USRD's guidelines, that should be brought to that project's attention at its talk page. Maybe that project has a good reason for not following a particular standard, and if that reason is good enough, it might be a better idea to revise USRD's standards. USRD, or any project for that matter, should never unilaterally go and change something that another project is doing simply because it doesn't like it. That will only lead to edit warring. We're supposed to work together through consensus, not against each other through edit wars.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See what I said in point 2 above. State editors have the responsibility of participating in standards discussions as they occur to ensure their interests are represented, and if they disagree with an established standard, they should bring it up with USRD before just ignoring it. If they really do have a good point USRD would probably happy to amend the standard. (I emphasize this situation you're talking about has to do with mere disagreements with the standard rather than merely tweaking it to better mesh with the idiosyncrasies of the state's highway system.) Furthermore, what's the point in having a high-level WikiProject go through the challenge of getting its many users to agree to something, work through compromise and debate, and finally emerge with a standard all present parties agree with, only to have two editors at a state-level project blow it off and do things their own way. That'd be akin to both houses of Congress passing a bill, after months of revision and debate, convincing a skeptical President to sign it, and then the town of Nenzel, Nebraska goes "Well fuck that, I think we know what we're doing better than them". That's not a good way to run a project, that's just selfishness, right there. That said, if they do go off and ignore it I don't see anything wrong with changing it to meet the standards in just the same way that I'll correct a dash if it doesn't meet WP:MOSDASH, no matter what project it's in. In short: if a project has a problem with a standard, they need to let us know first and we'll discuss it with them and amend the standard if they have a good point, but they're not to just go off and be a maverick without telling anyone. After all, it's equally probable that we have a good reason for setting the standard the way we do as they do for having a good reason for wanting it changed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about state projects deliberately changing their standards in protest of USRD. Sometimes USRD changes things that make a state project's standards incompatible or a state project will standardize something not realizing that USRD already has a standard for that. What should be done in situations like those? Both projects reached their decisions through consensus. If you change an article to fit USRD's standards the state project might change it back to fit its standards. In this situation it's better for a discussion to take place. Even if the state project changed its standards in protest, like you mentioned, you should still talk with the project's members. If that project already proposed its standard as a USRD-wide standard, but it was rejected by the community, the project has no right to unilaterally change its own articles to fit its proposal, the same way USRD has no right to change articles against another project's standards without discussion. If the project continues to violate the consensus in this way, dispute resolution may be necessary.-Jeff ^(talk) 12:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my...

So I leave for ten days and I come back to see this. (At least I can't be accused of starting it...) Could someone sum up what's happening here? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Previously on Battlestar Galactica: New York State Routes broke off from and left WP:USRD because they felt they'd be more productive on their own without the umbrella standards since they are a very good and active project. Most people were okay with this, but NE2, who heavily disagreed took it to the Admin Noticeboard. They declined to do anything but did say (I think) that like it or not NYSR is a by its very nature a subproject of USRD. Then some USRD vets weighed in, each with differing opinions, and everyone decided to argue with all the opinions. I stopped following when the opinions started because it doesn't actually hurt me one way or the other. It seems it's all mainly about standards. --MPD ^{T / C} 06:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because ACR is not necessary for FAC technically... --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As someone who took part in the discussions, here's how I saw it: NYSR cut ties with USRD as MPD said, and thus the fecal matter hit the spinning cooling device. NE2 posted to AN, then other people started weighing in here. Son and myself both said that individual WikiProjects should be able to function on their own without USRD intervening. I admitted that USRD should determine general standards that apply to all child projects. Scott asked what should be done if a state-level project doesn't follow USRD's standards. My reply was that USRD would have to have a discussion with the project instead of unilaterally changing offending articles without discussion (which would easily start an edit war), and if a project continues to ignore USRD's standards even after discussion, the situation might call for the dispute resolution process.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the paragraph above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What I have to say

I've thought about the situation en route to my relative's funeral. Here is what I have to say:

• I honestly don't see the point of NYSR splitting away from USRD. They are still bound to the same standards as they deal with U.S. roads. New York is still in the United States; if that changes in the future, we will deal with it then.
• It seems like the decision to split away is mainly a misunderstanding of things that some USRD users (including myself) have said. Most of these are things that have occurred in the past and do not affect USRD currently. So it seems that this decision was largely due to grudges and past differences with USRD, not present differences.
• As I said, a lot of the things upsetting people (participants list, the removal of POI at INSH, etc). were my ideas. I (personally) do confess that some of them were my fault and when criticized, did not handle the issues well, sometimes with anger. I could blame that on my immaturity (I was only 16 or 17 when most of the decisions were made), but in the end it was my fault and I take responsibility for that.
• It seems that there are a lot of other things that I have said that have been grossly misinterpreted (such as the "Policy regarding subordination" section on WP:USRD). This seems to be upsetting people as well. There is no cause for concern to any state highway project, and there are no secret plans for USRD to override any state highway project.
• That all being said, if you have any concerns about USRD or state highway projects or about concerns regarding a centralized USRD or whatever, I will be setting aside Monday from 5 PM to 9 PM PDT (with a dinner break) to answer these questions. I will be on IRC in the #wikipedia-en-roads room. If you don't do IRC, you can use my user talk page, or if the question is private, you can use the "Email this user" link on my userpage. I sense that there is a gross misunderstanding and rift between parties here and I am willing to work to resolve this.

--Rschen7754 (T C) 01:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• So nobody asked any questions. I will be in for most of the rest of this week if any remain, however. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My $10,000,000, It's immature to blame any project or any editor for "holding back" progress. If any article fails FAC, it's because the nominator failed to make the case that the article met FAC criteria, period. Not to say USRD is perfect, while most of my time is working on articles within USRD's scope, I also work on articles within the scope of WP:GTs and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains. USRD is much more strict on conformity then other projects, and generally more rude about chastising newbies for not following those standards. Although it doesn't make it right, I understand why, nobody fights over the naming scheme for ghost towns =-). It's equally immature to force someone to stay within the project. It's more than feasible that someone could get U.S. Route 66 up to FA status without any help from USRD and without using project templates etc. and if they can, more power to them.

Now just so I can offend everybody. I think the reason why some road articles is having such a hard time at FAC is because the article sucks, not the fault of any author or project. I've read a lot of road articles where the route description is little more than the Major intersections table in two paragraphs of text, and the history section is the major intersections table with dates, lacking all geographical and historical context. A FA (or even a GA for that matter) should be able to explain to a non-roadgeek, why should they care that this road exists. In other words, tell me, why were the taxpayers were asked to spend millions to build this sucker, and why was it built on the chosen alignment rather that a straight line between points A and B. In yet other words, don't make me read a 20 minute article that contains nothing more than what I could have found out myself from a 10 minute overview of Google Maps, tell me what I can't find out from Google Maps. Dave (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have a scapegoat I can say that I agree with your second paragraph. I don't necessarily succeed at explaining why the road was built, but I try to at least work in how the road relates to its surroundings: is the land entirely flat? Does the road pass through a canyon? Somewhat related, Talk:Pasadena Freeway#Good Article nomination made me feel good. --NE2 05:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 17 - one of the CA exit list templates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What the heck, I'll do them all. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New blog

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Blog --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Blog? How about just an updates page? Gary King (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Subproject page

This has been cited as being bureaucratic. IMHO we have established processes to demote and repromote projects (WP:RM) and to delete projects (XFD), and it's bureaucratic to have a vote on whether a project should be created or not. Can we just {{historical}} this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that creation should be freely available but it would probably be best to keep it around and have a central plate to do promote/demote, as well as keep the chronology of projects around for those who are interested in reading it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope and My $.02

I find that this diff is very unacceptable. I believe if you're going to single out a state's project "deny them privileges" then single 'all the states out.

If WP:NYSR wants to split, fine. It does not mean they can't get help from others. From where I sit, This is a personal dispute between members the USRD project and that is, in my opinion, unacceptable. I don't see a project as authoritative or another by any means whatsoever. It is a collaboration of articles.

I enjoy seeing all of the articles being uniform, but I don't enjoy all of the bickering that has taken place. I can see if a project wants to do its own, however, we don't need to make scope changes out of anger because a project doesn't want to be part of the group.

The actions taken on two fronts (NYSR and USRD's national editors) has been taken too far in my opinion. If the NYSR editors involved want to do their own thing, fine, but what you did is unacceptable in my opinion. I also believe that the USRD National editors are out of line in cutting the ties.

I will not revert the scope in the interests of preventing edit wars, but I encourage all to state their opinion on this matter as I just did above. Lately, Wikipedia has become "read-only" for me because I don't care for all the side shows that happen anymore. After several RFCs and Arbcomms, I really wonder if we have what it takes to Edit Articles and not go to war with each other.

If I choose to edit U.S. Roads articles in the future, it will be any of WI, IL, MN or IA - including Interstates, U.S. Routes, etc. - but I don't care what their status with USRD is but I feel they actually benefit from the uniform standards actually.

There's my $.02.

As far as the scope is concerned, the bit about NYSR not being a part of this project needs to be removed.  — master son^{T - C} 02:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

NYSR editors are always free to solicit individual users' help. However, it's not fair for NYSR editors to use our facilities when they are not a part of the project. Of course, NYSR is always welcome back into USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement that another project must adhere to this project's standards is unacceptable and provocative. I am generally in favor of standards and consistency, but since NYSR is its own project, then the NY road articles "fall under WP:NYSR, not this project". Omnedon (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New York roads are U.S. roads. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, but the articles themselves are now part of WP:NYSR. Omnedon (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

NYSR does not own articles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor does USRD  — master son^{T - C} 03:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not say so, but the NY road articles fall within the scope of NYSR. Why do you feel that one project may dictate to another? Omnedon (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles can be under the scope of two projects. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(double ec)But it does lie under their jurisdiction, therefore, their policies apply. IMO, an article such as "US XX in New York" would lie under NYSR, which has its own policies (apparently), while the nationwide "U.S. Route XX" would lie under Wikiproject U.S. Highways, which adheres to our (USRD's) policies. That's how I would do it - CL — 03:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

...New York roads are U.S. roads. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but they split up from us. Articles such as NY 32, US 44 in NY, and I-90 in NY belong to them, even though they are U.S. roads. I'm not going to argue over the secession, but they did leave our project and we have to respect that now. Yeah, what a mess.... CL — 03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles do not belong to projects. Articles follow project standards, however. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we know that NY roads exist within the bounds of the US, and in that context they are "US roads" as well as "NY roads". However, since there is a project specifically for dealing with articles about state roads in NY, those articles fall within the scope that project, and in that context the roads are, first and foremost, NY roads. Omnedon (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But that does not mean that USRD standards do not apply. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Though I'm not too familiar with the particular circumstances here, I don't think standards in one WikiProject can normally be imposed on work done in another. Uniformity is certainly desirable, and hopefully NYSR will still follow national standards when it's reasonable to do so; however, if the participants choose to implement certain variations for their state, that's presumably their decision. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, here's my take on the situation. First and foremost, people are making way too big of a deal about the splitting of NYSR from USRD; it is way over dramatized. The splitting was nothing more than getting a new project tag. That's it. I somewhat agree with Rschen that articles still need to follow the standards of USRD, though I believe the split gives NYSR some independence from the more trivial ones. While I'm not going to point fingers, I strongly disagree with completely omitting New York from USRD's services and luxuries like MTF. Regarding MTF, IMO, it should be moved to a subpage of WP:HWY, so it applies to every possible project related to roads anywhere in the world, not the arbitrary U.S. border that now apparently excludes New York. Back on topic, if we are to completely remove New York articles from the scope of USRD, that must include Interstates and U.S. Highways in New York, and articles such as New York State Route 28 for consistency's sake.

Now, I think there should have definitely been more discussion before making the split. Rather, it was a matter of one day, one user made the decision to split, and so he did. I don't blame that user; I wholeheartedly support his actions. But as I said, we should have at least made an attempt to reach consensus of whether the split was acceptable. However it is now too late, and we've now gotten ourselves into a battle or sorts. So instead of arguing over how gets to use ACR, we need to try and make the two projects work with each other, and independently at the same time.

I also agree with Master Son. Let's just try to edit some damn articles rather than fighting over who does so, who did so incorrectly, etc. At this point, NYSR is mainly run by a handful of editors. One could even say I'm one of them. And I doubt that, as a project, we now have the ability to come walking back to USRD without leaving both projects with grudges against each other. I do hope I'm wrong in saying that, but that is another problem that has to be resolved, should NYSR ever want to sit under the {{USRD}} tag again.

Bottom line is this whole event was blown way out of proportion, and before we let it get any worse, and before we end up at RFC and ArbCom, we need to figure out some way to harmonize the projects, and how they work with each other. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding USRD services - Uh no, you guys left the project. That was your decision (even if it was a bad one). We don't use UKRD's shields task force, we use our own. NYSR editors are always welcome to solicit individual users' help, you can at their talk page.

Regarding USRD standards - You've given me these strange arguments about jurisdiction and tradition. New York roads are U.S. roads. The articles fall under the scope of USRD; it's not a matter of dictating from one project to another. NYSR does not own the articles. You probably would follow the basic structure at USRD/STDS anyway since it's just the basic RD, history, etc. structure. ELG isn't even under USRD anymore.

It seems to me like you're trying to just take the benefits of USRD without the responsibility. That's not how it works in real life or on Wikipedia. I don't agree that the decision to split was a good one. You've lost ACR, MTF, and shields. You've gained a whole bunch of drama and bad feelings with the rest of USRD. Also, it seems like someone was having a bad hair day and then decided to fork the project; after talking with this person, it seems that they had no good reason to do so. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree—the decision to split NYSR was a terrible idea, though I do support the editor who did so's actions. I can see that USRD has sufficiently omitted NYSR from ACR, MTF and shields, but I don't understand why. The forking was made "official" far premature, and now it's as if NYSR is at fault. Technically, it is. However, I don't believe that one user who decides to split a project should determine weather we still have to follow USRD's standards, and whether we get to benefit from its services. Right now, the scope is very inconsistent; we have to follow USRD's rules, standards, what have you, but we can't use MTF and ACR? Hardly seems fair.

I know it seems like my opinion is changing, so let my clarify. I hate the idea of splitting the projects. But I'm afraid I have to support the actions taken and try to make it work. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to support the actions to fork - you can have your own opinion on the matter. The editor who forked acted like the deal was done (at least when I talked to him) - so that was why the changes were made now rather than later. And we would welcome NYSR back should they choose to come back to USRD - which would clearly be the easier decision involving much less drama. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's my opinion regarding the moral of this story. WP:NYSR split from WP:USRD. Personally, I oppose this decision, but nothing you can do about it. Rschen7754 (talk · contribs), deal with it. It's not worth making any more worse of this hulabaloo than it is now. Must eat worms (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

NYSR → USRD?

It's time to seriously discuss what just happened. It is as if one day, one user woke up, and decided out of the blue that he was going to split NYSR from USRD, and so he did. Granted, it was way orer-dramatized. It was nothing more than taking the project's name off of WP:USRD and getting a new project tag. There was no change in standards, no change in participants, and none of the predicted increase in activity. All the forking has done is cause problems. First, NYSR has lost access to all of USRD's services; MTF, ACR, and shields. There is an ongoing massive and dramatic fight on WT:USRD. And yet, we have gained nothing from the split. As such, I am proposing the two projects be merged. NYSR is, and will still be its own project, but under the supervision and standards of USRD. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How has NYSR "lost access to all of USRD's services?" Are they all of a sudden not going to be able to have shields? Are people going to refuse to review NY road articles? Are people going to refuse to create maps?

For the record, I agree with Master son's opinion above.

NYSR left. Let it go. I see little to be gained by continued bickering. --Sable232 (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We should leave this question to the members of NYSR as it really is their decision. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As a member of NYSR, I can say that yes, we did lose access to USRD's most important services, ACR, MTF, and shields. Yes, people have removed New York requests from MTF, so yes, people have refused to create maps.

I will not let it go. Similarly, I am not bickering. I am simply trying to resolve the situation, and you're not helping by dismissing the proposal as bickering. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so it's not that the people who make maps won't to make them, it's that Rschen won't allow the requests. Not surprising.

I find this whole situation comical. Unfortunately, it's going to take a lot more than I think anyone is willing to do to fix this problem, which, IMO, is USRD as a whole.

Furthermore, I think that if NYSR is going to rejoin USRD that's going to be their call. I don't see why it has to come up here. --Sable232 (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not just Rschen. Please stop, your comments are beginning to look like personal attacks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please quit trying to make me the bad guy here; I'm only going along with what the rest of USRD decided in my absence: [22]. I am trying to help the situation, but your comments are inflammatory, unhelpful, and not keeping the discussion civil.

If you want to discuss USRD being "centralized," go ahead. You accuse it of being so and you don't get specific. Furthermore, I'll state that half of the problem is on the side of the states; USRD comes up with a proposal, nobody from the states gives input, the proposal is passed, and then people complain. That's what happened with the participants list, and I keep being made the bad guy for it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about being centralized?

I looked at the history of MTF/R, saw you removed it. If that was a consensus that I didn't see I apologize.

I assume the "comical" remark is what you deem inflammatory and offensive and incivil et cetera? I'm being honest based on what I've seen over the course of these discussions. And, as usual, if someone who isn't part of the USRD clan makes a comment that isn't agreeable, people get all pissy about it.

Given what happens here, are you trying to say the system isn't broken?

But, I've reminded myself of why I don't come around here anymore. Back on my merry way go I. I guess I've done too much beehive-poking anyway. --Sable232 (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed you have done too much "beehive-poking". You've come into the middle of a perfectly legitimate conversation and attempted to turn it into a battle, and you claim that the "USRD clan" becomes pissy about it. Hardly. We're simply trying to reach consensus without personal attacks and incorrect accusations. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just about everyone else in this discussion remained civil. Except for you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough!

The fighting is getting ridiculous, almost to WP:LAME level (if it's not there already). Instead of turning this page into a battleground, why don't we try to reach a compromise? My proposal is that we think of what part or parts of the state projects absolutely must be coordinated. The only thing I can think of is standards; after all, we want the articles to have a consistent appearance. Everything else can be handled by the individual projects if they want to (even standards to an extent, see my earlier comments), otherwise, they can use USRD's facilities. So any state project can use USRD's shields task force to request shields, and if they want to start their own shields task force, there's nothing wrong with that. In short, NYSR should be allowed to use USRD's facilities, but they have the responsibility to keep their standards based on USRD's in order to give articles a consistent appearance. This applies to other state projects as well. I think this will allow us to keep things the way they are for the time being, but if a state project wants to do a certain thing on its own, it wouldn't feel pressured not to.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that NYSR members should be given the chance to speak out as there was no consensus for the forking. NYSR being restored into USRD would be the easiest solution at this point. Of course, there are issues to bring up, but this would be much easier than dealing with a project that is and is not part of USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What would it mean for NYSR to be a part of USRD again? Under my proposal, all state-level projects will automatically be part of USRD, but all that would be required of them is that they coordinate their standards with USRD's. So as long as NYSR meets that requirement it's fine, and nothing would need to be changed.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I quite like the idea of moving NYSR back under the USRD project tag, but keeping it somewhat independent. Unless anyone has any objections, I'm going to replace NYSR on the various USRD pages. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the beauty of my proposal, if a project wants to tag articles with its own banner, it can, and if it wants to use USRD's banner, it can.-Jeff ^(talk) 03:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Would the tag feed into the USRD assessment cats? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's felt that that should be a requirement alongside coordinating standards, then of course. And I can see the rationale for it: allowing USRD's assessment table to reflect the status of all states' articles.-Jeff ^(talk) 03:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As the sun rises above the hills
We all prepare to take some pills
A Civil War is brewing
CL — 02:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)To be slightly less cryptic, fgs they decided to split from USRD proper and are their own project (to make it more understandable, New York went from being a "state" of USRD to its own country), so why are we getting our panties in a bunch over this? Who cares? If someone from NYSR pops up on MTF and requests a map, will we, as they say, bust a cap? No. If an editor is willing to take their request, let them. But keep in mind, folks, this hasn't happened yet. When it does, we act accordingly. As for jurisdiction and whatnot, there will be a degree of interaction between the two projects, for articles such as say, US 2. So what do we do? We put two separate tags on the talk pages, something like Talk:iPod. That article is under two projects, WP Macintosh and WP Technology. So what's so hard about doing this on our pages? I'd like to hear what Mitch has to say about this, as he basically spearheaded the secession - CL — 02:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've said a few times, MTF members are (obviously) allowed to make NYSR maps, but people can't use the USRD page to request them. Of course, this would become moot if NYSR came back to USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

All I am saying is, we are blowing this way out of proportion. And anyway, it's unlikely NYSR will want to use our services as their project page says they're going to implement these features by themselves. CL — 03:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that MTF shouldn't even be part of USRD; it should be part of WP:HWY. What's more ridiculous is the statement "they can't use the USRD page." That is exactly the reason why it should be under WP:HWY. --Son (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

While that might sound good in theory, we'd have the same problems if a project decided to "split" from HWY. --NE2 05:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There are three things I want out of the project before the decision is made:

• 1) Let each subproject decide notability standards. This should not be controlled U.S. Roads.
• 2) Dependent on the article, article structure should be instated as "xx type of article does that, and yy type of article does that".
• 3) Lemme keep my dang banners - they look way better than the cruddy one we have now.

I won't do a thing if these aren't met.Mitch32^(UP) 10:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(1) Wikipedia as a whole decides notability standards. No project has the right to decide what will be redirected to another article with no mention. (2) Isn't that what we do? (3) If that's a reason to split, you're rather dense. --NE2 10:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)\

1) Um, lemme think, reference routes and county routes? Both of which NY has. 2) I've seen the structure the same, and literally, its getting boring. 3) That's being idiotic. As I have kept saying - I split it to help the project grow, and I think that no one is getting that.Mitch32^(UP) 10:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(1) Um, other states have them too. (2) Maybe it's boring because, as Dave says above, your writing is boring? (3) No one is getting it because it doesn't make sense. --NE2 10:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mitch, your idea was good-hearted, and I can see it working in a more neutral project, but it's causing a battle, and we haven't gained room to grow, so it's somewhat moot. NE2: true, Wikipedia as a whole decides notability standards, but it is USRD that discourages writing county routes. While I don't see the point in writing CRs, I suppose one could say that would be a benefit of keeping NYSR separate. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Adam, While I try to stay neutral on most of these things, I will speak my peace briefly: This whole situation of wanting to split from USRD presents a bad reflection of you. You have ultimately presented yourself with somewhat of a "Me! Me! Me!" attitude for this. Please step back, take a look at the situation, and rather than this be about you, allow the NYSH project to re-join USRD. The NYSH project will be much better for it, thanks to the resources, etc. Just think about it. Thanks. DanTheMan474 (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You are sounding very demanding, like a hostage negotiator. This is not the way to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. (1) I think that USRD needs to have a say in notability. What if a project decides to make all state highways not notable? (2) And who is going to teach the n00bs how to write USRD articles then? (3) That is the worst argument I have heard for anything in the three and a half years I have been on Wikipedia. That is not a joke or an exaggeration. It literally is. In summary, no. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Necessary break inserted here

No no no no no no no no. This makes me angry. How dare you say that he's causing a battle. This has been going on for YEARS, since in the immediate shadows of the SRNC dispute is when USRD became centralized and turned into what it is now. This discussion is rather lame because people would rather argue minor points rather than real change. WP:USRD is a badly managed project and has been for a long time.

This project, I believe, has no right to take other WikiProjects and say "you have to follow us, no ifs ands or buts about it," which is what happened a few years back. When that happened, they shouldn't have stayed as WikiProjects - every state WikiProject should have become a task force.

A WikiProject is a WikiProject. It may be a descendant project of another, but that's merely a relationship. That doesn't mean that one project has to follow another. How often does WP:PENNA conflict with WP:PASH? It doesn't, because the people at the Pennsylvania project let WP:PASH editors do what they wanted, as long as they weren't crappy articles. In other words, they only interfered when necessary. They didn't assume that someone would make a crappy article. They assumed good faith.

That's the way USRD should be operating. The Maps Task Force shouldn't be only meant for USRD. It should be available for any nation to use that has a roads project. A particular project shouldn't control something like that. Go figure that WP:HWY has no standards really - because it lets individual nations decide this. Then USRD should have basic standards - such as the Infobox - and otherwise let states do what it wants to do.

If a state WP want to have articles of county routes, can USRD say no? No, the project can't. The only ones who can't are the Notability guidelines for Wikipedia. And then if it's failing in notability, then it's for the people at Articles for Deletion to decide whether to keep, merge, or delete it. That's not a USRD decision. --Son (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If an editor wants to have articles on county routes, can NYSR say no? No, the project can't. --NE2 13:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests from outside projects absolutely should be denied. We barely have enough cartographers and reviewers to meet the current needs of the U.S., much less foreign countries such as New York. (Also, one of the reasons many of the contributors here let NY go instead of arguing is because they were abusing the services...flooding ACR and not contributing back reviews especially.) Furthermore, above I posted a 13-point plan for how things should go and people pretty much agreed with that. Can we not just follow that? A project where individual states are allowed to do stupid shit all the time isn't really a project I'd want to contribute to anymore. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask WP:TROP if they were denied any requests for help by WP:METEO and you'll see how lame this is.  — master son^{T - C} 17:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

/me asks himself...yep, this is lame. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're missing a critical point - WP:TROP is still a part of WP:METEO and has not forked away. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming bad faith. WikiProject United States lets WikiProject Maryland do everything on its own, but WikiProject Maryland certainly doesn't do "stupid shit all the time". The project has functioned just fine without any outside interference. Heck, even state-level roads projects that have operated relatively independently from USRD have been fine. In fact, it wasn't until USRD's interference and the resultant bickering that projects began to fall apart, WP:PASH being an example of that.-Jeff ^(talk) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

AGF applies to specific actions; you can't proactively assume good faith. That would be like saying "well, we're going to assume good faith that nobody will vandalize," which would be naive. You have to prepare for everything. PASH fell apart because Johnny Albert got a job and quit contributing, not because of USRD involvement. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing with the details, but you're missing the main point, exactly why this discussion doesn't seem to be making any progress. You claim that if a project is given autonomy it will go off and do things against USRD's standards and even Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Where has that happened before? The examples I've given throughout this discussion show that your view is inconsistent with reality. WPMD works fine without WP:USA controlling it, and as I said in my original post on this, MDRD worked fine on its own in the early days. We made alot of progress back then, and didn't need USRD to do it. If it isn't broke, why fix it?-Jeff ^(talk) 18:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

NYSR members have stated to me that they would go against USRD standards. I don't know if it was on or off wiki, but they have said that they would. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Then that's an issue that needs to be taken up with NYSR. It's no reason to be controlling the operations of other projects. It's as if one user vandalizes pages, and several users get blocked for that one user's actions.-Jeff ^(talk) 18:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but we're getting way off topic. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal

Uh, guys, we're talking about the forking and possible merging of two projects here, not who's assuming bad faith, not what happened to WP:PASH, not about where WP:USRD/MTF should be. Let's either get back on topic and hash out a decision, or archive this entire thread; all we're doing right now is getting each other mad and creating further grudges between ourselves. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here, here. I'd personally like to see NYSR back in the USRD family of projects. Both benefit from each other. Other USRD taskforces and subproject gain experience from FxCs pursued by NYSR. NYSR gains from the maps and shields task forces, ACR and general collaboration. I only supported the forking at the time because it was said it was what the project desired, but I see that there's counter arguments and dissent from that. I'd invite any constructive proposals to mend the rifts. I have the structural steel ready, who wants to rebuild the bridge? Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're not reading what I'm saying. Because if you did, you would see that what I'm saying is that the NYSR fork is the result of the entire problem which dates back to SRNC. --Son (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in short, I got active on WP at the very end of SRNC. In fact, I ignore SRNC since it didn't involve Michigan articles at all, honestly. I don't see what a lot of the arguments and drama have been about. Each subproject adapts the national standards to that particular state's situation. Nothing about the particular situation prevents that, IMHO, but I don't know some of the now ancient wikihistory surrounding this. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You are being very vague with your accusations. You keep saying there are problems with USRD and thus it's bad. But what are the problems? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it is that ever since the fallout from SRNC, USRD has become more and more centralized. While individual actions that have been cited as examples of this have either been reverted or apologized for, that doesn't change the general attitude that the state-level projects can't do things on their own. Some of the comments in this discussion are evident that that attitude still exists within USRD.-Jeff ^(talk) 16:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

We have two options here, either we ignore the "off-topic" posts, merge NYSR back in, and let everything go back to the way it was complete with the problems that led NYSR to leave in the first place, or we could actually discuss a solution. The fact that NYSR actually deemed it necessary to "secede" from USRD proves that there is a problem. A project shouldn't have to cut ties with its parent project in order to function on its own, it should be able to automatically function on its own whether or not it's under the scope of another project.-Jeff ^(talk) 23:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As an active editor of the Michigan project, I don't feel like USRD interferes with my ability to edit and create articles. I don't think ties with USRD affects the functioning of the Michigan project except to provide further avenues of collaboration, template support, article reviews and map/shield creation. I think I benefit as an editor from USRD and try to give back to the wider project. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine if you feel that way. If MISH feels that it benefits from a closer relationship with USRD then there is nothing wrong with that project deciding to continue that relationship. Other projects however, might feel that they can operate more efficiently by doing certain things on their own. What I'm saying is that in the case of those projects, USRD shouldn't tell them "you can't do that, you have to use our facilities". Projects should be allowed to make their own decisions without USRD telling them what's right and wrong.-Jeff ^(talk) 16:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it comes down to the following:

• If a project (such as NYSR) wants to break off on their own - they will need to know how to support themselves - this is based on comments made by USRD national editors who feel that the ties are cut.
• USRD project's national editors need to understand a project's desire to leave and try things on their own and decide if the fight to keep said project as a child project (This is the correct term). Ethical matters come into play here - as NE2 pointed out on WT:NYSR "Can we start rebuilding the burned George Washington Bridge?" which was emphatically burned during this situation

in reality - based on discussion above, one editor made a decision for the entire NYSR project. As Dan mention above - Mitch has truly only thought of himself - and himself alone. This is not about Mitchazenia, this needs to be about Wikipedia (USRD and NYSR inclusive). Imzadi1979 choses to keep the close ties for the Michigan project to USRD and take advantage of its resources. Jeff02 choses to operate Maryland on his own - as does Son and Pennsylvania. I haven't heard anything "wrong" about any of them. Not as much as this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Master son (talk • contribs)

Jeff never made a big fanfare of leaving USRD and cutting ties. Son *did* move PASH without consensus and generated some attention, but that was during Arbcom, and the move could not be reverted, and it was largely ignored due to the mayhem of Arbcom. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What facilities to you have to use? I don't use the shields task force, I have Adobe Illustrator and with a template I know how to make a shield graphic myself. I don't officially use MTF, since the last maps I needed I asked someone on IRC if they could make for me. I suppose the only one would be ACR, but that's only if you want to promote something to A-Class. Honestly, I can appreciate that forum though. I've seen articles that went straight from GAN to FAC fail over various little issues. ACR for me has been vary collaborative and very helpful with the two articles I took to FAC. I credit it with helping both pass. If a subproject doesn't want to pursue A-Class for articles, there is honestly no USRD facility they must use. The only thing as it stands that I see a state subproject must do is substantially conform to the article standards with any state-specific modifications necessary. If a state needs help making maps or shields, there are the two task forces they can call upon for help, but that's optional. Have I missed something here? Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to use USRD's facilities, but what if a state-level project decided that it would be better for it to create its own assessment department, shields task force, maps task force, etc.? How do you think USRD would react to that? Based on my experience with the project, it wouldn't be a very positive reaction. In fact, it's been pointed out that NYSR's "secession" was really nothing more than replacing the USRD banner on its pages with an NYSR banner. If that's true, then USRD is really overreacting. There's nothing wrong with a project tagging its own articles.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

All at once, you would have to wonder what was going on. Separately, it depends. With a state like NY, there are no cartographers, so you would know that they were doomed if they decided to set up their own MTF. A state like MI, they can actually make their own maps. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Some things we can (hopefully) agree on

After looking over this whole discussion, and thinking over it for a while, I've come up with a few points that I think we can all agree on.

For state-level projects:

1. All U.S. state-level roads projects are inherently under the USRD umbrella due to their scope. No state-level project can declare itself to be outside the scope of USRD.
2. State projects are free to change the way they operate, but if that change will impact USRD, the project should seek USRD's opinion first.
3. If a state project wants to do things on its own, the reason for that should be that the project will genuinely benefit from it, there is no need to disrupt the status quo just for the sake of it.
4. State projects are expected to adhere to USRD's standards. If a state project thinks things should be done drastically differently from the existing USRD standards, the members of that project should propose those changes at WT:USRD/STDS, and not just apply those standards to their project alone.

For USRD:

1. All U.S. state-level roads projects, being under the USRD umbrella, should not be denied the use of USRD's facilities.
2. USRD can do things that affect state-level projects, but USRD should seek the opinion of those projects first.
3. Some state-level projects choose to operate independently from USRD, USRD should assume good faith in this situation. Chances are, those projects are only doing it because they feel they will work better on their own. It's nothing personal against USRD
4. If for whatever reason, a state project's standards conflict with USRD's, a discussion should take place. USRD's standards do not automatically override state projects' standards.

-Jeff ^(talk) 03:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "work independently?" Leaving the project like NYSR did, or just working independently? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

See point one under "for state-level projects", state-level projects are inherently under USRD's scope so no project can "leave". Some, however, chose to do things on their own without working with USRD. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with that.-Jeff ^(talk) 04:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What if the state projects do not give an opinion (i.e. inactive or apathetic) in regards to USRD #2? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If a state project is contacted regarding a proposal that will affect them and they don't give their input, then that's their loss. Like I said, some state projects might work separately from USRD, so if a discussion takes place here, they might miss it (like the participants list situation for example). But if a notice is posted on that project's talk page, they're not going to miss it. If the project is inactive, then I guess there wouldn't be anyone around to care about the project being changed.-Jeff ^(talk) 04:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with that is that someone has to then go and notify each project... --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(Let me footnote that I do think that this proposal could work, but I'm making sure that someone could not find a loophole and abuse it.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Notifying each project could be split up between multiple editors, or a bot could be put on the task.-Jeff ^(talk) 01:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I could use Rschen7754bot since it has no function now (due to the newsletter being discontinued...) of course, we would have to get it through BAG. Are IH and USH treated as state level projects here? Otherwise, this sounds good. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, I completely forgot about them, but they would certainly count as the same as the other child projects of USRD.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel that USRD should be under no obligation to contact subprojects whenever discussion is posted. This talk page is too high-volume to do that feasibly. It's not difficult to just watchlist this page and look over it every so often to see if anything important's going on. If there's discussions going on that someone might get upset over if they don't have their say, surely they can spare the effort to check here to see if anything is being discussed on which they may want to give their opinion. Only one person in each project really needs to keep an eye on WT:USRD, anyway; that person could alert their own project to the discussion if needed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think that this is a double-edged sword here. If the discussion is something big on the order of SRNC or participation list merging, yes, we should be spamming subproject pages. Something small, well, shouldn't concerned people already have this page watchlisted? I dunno, help me out here. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's something routine like updating standards, it would get rather tedious to post to all the subprojects every time a change is made. I'm also not saying that every time a discussion is posted here the subprojects should be notified. All I'm saying is that if something is being discussed that will have a significant impact on the subprojects (such as the examples Imzadi1979 gave), they should be notified.-Jeff ^(talk) 05:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)