Talk:Saginaw Trail/Archive 1

Reorganization
I reorganized the article to follow WP:USRD standards. It now has the start of an infobox, but it will need a map added. The section headers are set up to have a Route description that's been condensed. It should be expanded, but each county doesn't need a subheading for a single sentence. (M-28 is three-times longer and doesn't have as many subheadings as this article did. The entire History section should be converted to sentences and paragraphs, not lists. The first state trunkline designations were used in the field and on maps as early as 1919, yet the first mention of any designation isn't until 1926. With the exception of the formation date in the infobox, the entire article is uncited. Michigan Highways, while a useful starting point for information on roads in the state, is not a reliable source under Wikipedia policies. I can help find old maps and other sources, but we can't cite directly to that website.

The article at a minimum also should have a photo or two, or old maps showing the trail added. USRD's MTF can help produce a map of the trail as well for the infobox. If there was a marker used, we should find it and create a graphic of it as well. I suspect that not all of the historical trail though uses the current modern roadways, so it's not completely state-maintained. I figure that some sections of the original path of the road have been abandoned or obliterated by modern development. That should be researched and added. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see what's wrong with the Michigan Highways page, its full of historical facts and as far as i can tell its the only page of its kind. I agree a map would be beneficial and easy to make, just trace Woodward, Dixie (Oakland Co.), Saginaw (Genesee Co.), Dixie (Saginaw Co.), and Genesee St. (Saginaw Co.). TomCat4680 (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also I don't understand why the history section should be in prose and paragraphs instead of bullets. I added it a long time ago and someone said it needed cleanup so I bulleted it instead; I think it looks more organized that way. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Its great that the road I live on is so historical. Makes me feel special. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Michigan Highways is a self-published source (SPS). It fails under the WP:RS and Verifiability criteria. I've been down this road, and only until I could re-source the M-35 article completely to maps and books could I have a chance at getting them Featured. As great as Chris Bessert is, and as great as his websites are, they just don't qualify to be used as a source on wikipedia. I have an archive of maps from the Library of Michigan dating back to the 1920s at my disposal so any routing or designation changes can be cited to the relevant maps that show the road before and after the change. In some years, MDOT printed 2 or 3 maps meaning a change can be narrowed down to a few month's time.
 * As for the History section, take a look at M-28 or M-35 for examples of highway articles that are Featured Articles. They have history sections that are written out in prose. Everything in the history section here could be woven together into a more cohesive section as well, instead of jumping around a bit. There's more to the history of the road than what you've assembled already. The LeRoy Barnett book, A Drive Down Memory Lane: The Named State and Federal Highways of Michigan is available on Google Books and it has about a page or so of information on the Saginaw Trail, quite a bit that isn't listed in this article yet. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I found that book you mentioned on Google Books, but half of the section about Saginaw Trail is missing (it starts on page 192 which is missing, but the second half on page 193 is there). I don't know why they left it out.TomCat4680 (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just an aside, the problem is not with the Michigan highways site, it is with over-zealous mis-applications of WP:RS and Verifiability criteria. Just my opinion anyhow. older ≠ wiser 21:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah well I don't agree with a lot of the rules on Wikipedia but I gotta follow them anyway. You could always start a discussion about possibly changing the rules, it happened with the old "spoilers" rule and it was reversed (can't stop people from putting in spoilers about movies / TV shows / books, etc., no matter how hard you try). TomCat4680 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's a great site, but I tried to start a discussion about using the site when the M-28 article was at USRD's A-Class Review (ACR) after M-35 was promoted to A-Class using the site as a source. I was shot down at both forums. If/when Chris Bessert ever helps me with some information, maybe we can get the site included under the current rules, until then, the rule stands. I actually support the current rule since it prevents someone from writing something false, publishing it on their own website and then using the site to support the falsehood on WP. The main purpose of WP is to create an accurate encyclopedia. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah that makes sense I guess, Imzadi.TomCat4680 (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. Of course if one is trying to write a high quality article, you can not rely on a single source. But the reasoning that a self-published web-site is unreliable simply because it is self-published is fallacious. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We added a bunch of other sources over night. The Bessert links section was changed from "sources" to "external links". So do you have anything relevant to add to the article bkonrad? (if so by all means go ahead) or do you just want to debate wikipolicy? TomCat4680 (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For now I'm commenting on policy. Sorry if that offends you. The point being that the MI highways site is fine to use as a reference for specific details. It is problematic when it is the only or principal source used for an entire article. older ≠ wiser 14:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't offend me, this just isn't the place. We added several other sources in the last 24 hours so you shouldn't be bothered by it now.TomCat4680 (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what "it" you think bothered me. I mean it's great to find and add good sources. But at the same time, there's nothing wrong with using the michigan highways site as a source so long as it is not relied on as the single primary source for an article. older ≠ wiser 01:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Using Google Maps as a source
From my comment at T:TDYK: I'm not sure if using Google maps as a source is appropriate (partly because it's not a permanent link, it's a GIS map generated on the fly; partly because I don't know if it meets WP:RS). I opened a thread at WP:RS/N to see if anyone there knows anything about this. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 12:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Imzadi made the map just to calculate the distance. I have an open request on the mapmakers task force for a permanent one (WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Maps_task_force/Requests) they just haven't gotten to it yet. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there is ample precedent for using it a a source. Please see for a discussion about the usage of maps in articles from November. Several GAs use Google Maps for source information. M-553 (Michigan highway) and Utah State Route 313 are just two examples. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. The map doesn't just provide the distance. Yes, that's a pleasant effect of the cited map, but the map also shows the turn by turn routing of the roadway as well as the designations along it. If Saginaw Trail wasn't partially routed along county roads and city streets, and if it was completely state maintained, a map from MDOT or Rand McNally would suffice for the general routing. The exception is that MDOT or Rand McNally and the like don't include street names unlike Google Maps or Yahoo Maps. All are based on the same GIS datasets at varying degrees of precision and scale in the final output. Google and other online maps have an infinite range of scales in comparison to a fixed paper map. The output of a Google Maps link is no less permanent than any online-hosted content. Rottentomatoes.com could change the links that point to movie reviews, or even remove content from their website, but that doesn't preclude it usage as a source. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotation placed in article
I have removed the quotation from the article. It was a verbatim quotation from a website which bears the notice "Copyright 2010 Law Office of Chisholm & Shuttie 3123 Crooks Rd, Royal Oak, MI 48073". Yes, it was attributed, but quoting full paragraphs like that violates WP:NFCC which says: "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." The entire work was used, not a portion. Instead I have written a new set of sentences that summarizes the source and removed the quotation.  Imzadi  1979   →  06:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the law firm can claim copyright since they transcribed it directly off the marker, which is owned by the state (or whoever put it there). I agree with the shortening though since half of it was about something completely unrelated, so I'll leave it be. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The text quoted from the website is not text that appears on the markers in the photo, meaning it is a creation of the law firm, and under copyright. Even works of the State of Michigan are under copyright. Only works of the federal government, the states of California, Florida or Minnesota plus court decisions and the legal codes/statues themselves in any state are automatically public domain. I had to get clarification that File:CapitolLoop.svg, the marker for the Capitol Loop, was not under copyright by MDOT, so don't assume anything. (P.S. If the text of the marker is PD, it's not Wikipedia's requirements to format text exactly as originally formatted. We don't underline, and we normally don't center text.)  Imzadi   1979   →  19:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've also now reworked some text that was directly copied from another historical marker without attribution. That text from 1988 is under copyright to the State of Michigan unless they've released it into the public domain.  Imzadi   1979   →  19:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)