User talk:DanTD/Archive. January - February 2017

U.S. Route 29 in Georgia and Georgia State Route 14
I see that you are about to revamp the route description for U.S. Route 29 in Georgia. Yes, I watch your sandbox. After you are done, could you revamp the Georgia State Route 14 article? Except for the northern-most segment, it travels concurrently with US 29 for its entire length. Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Georgia State Route 14's route description does need a lot of work, especially since some of the descriptions for the auxiliary routes are longer. I'm just worried that I might get too much flack from User:Imzadi1979 and User:Fredddie. Fortunately for US 29 I found a way to shorten the description of the overlaps with US 23, 78, and 278. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw that stupid "conversation" they had with you about that. I didn't see the "Route description" section before it was removed, but I believe that every intersection with a numbered highway and interchange should be mentioned in the route description, not just in the "Major intersections" or "Exit list" section. Just do what you can. If nothing else, you could copy-paste into the SR 14 article and make the appropriate changes. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In their defense, it was long, and longer than I wanted. But many of these details were important to the route. You can see it in the history. Blanking it out was kind of ridiculous though, and some of the material can be shifted to other articles. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that certain details, that are important to a highway, should be included. They keep road-blocking me in things I do in the Project, as well, and it got very discouraging. I almost quit editing for a while. I think it was not only "ridiculous" but stupid for them to remove the description. Someone should have just trimmed it down and left you a note. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the only way to revise something to fit better parameters is to delete it and start over with those parameters in mind. I also disagree: not every junction needs to be mentioned within an RD. Most of them, yes, but not always all. Additionally, sometimes it takes a radical act to push an issue simmering in the background into the foreground. This was not the first RD section we've said was way too long to meet the standards of good writing and Wikipedia's house style (summary style and all that). The level of detail in several of these RD sections is excessive, and it needs to be pared back.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about me since I'm not actually reading those too-long RDs. I see a big wall of text and my eyes glaze over. –Fredddie™ 22:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't read them either. I start with the first paragraph, see that they have way too much detail so densely packed, and then I skip the rest. In short, DanTD, those huge walls of text are a perfect guarantee to ensure no one ever reads your writing.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me ask the two of you something else; Do you agree that there are some elements of these roads that that the junction lists simply can't cover? -User:DanTD (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

February 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thanking
In the future, please refrain from thanking me for seven separate edits to the same article. It's actually somewhat annoying to get that many notifications at once for a single article.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it was more than one edit, but no problem. While we're on the topic, how do you feel about moving more of those route descriptions of the business routes at Interstate 80 in Wyoming to Business routes of Interstate 80? -User:DanTD (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)