User talk:Fredddie/Archives/2011

The Signpost: 3 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Puerto Rico Highways
Fredddie:

Some time back we briefly touched this subject that I am about to tell you about now, but we were, as I recall, on another matter and never got to work on this. It has to do with the fact that a large number of Puerto Rico roads do not have shields that coincide with the network (primary, urban primary, secondary, tertiary) they belong to. (I may have -partly- contributed to this myself when I provided you with information that was only partly correct (but which was all that was available to me at the moment)).

Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Puerto_Rico_Highways#Reverting_good_faith_changes_by_67.224.241.20_to_last_version_by_66.50.81.195. HERE] for a description of how this problem affects the development fo PR road articles.

BTW, if this is not the place for this discussion, please let me know where to take it and I will gladly take it there. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fine to let me know about things here. I'll direct all my comments to the list's talk page. –Fredddie™ 03:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hummmmm, I am not sure if there is anything that is wanted from me to help solve this problem... Do I just sit tight now and until something happens? What is supposed to happen next??? Mercy11 (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Circular highway shield


The article Circular highway shield has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Admrboltz (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Circular highway shield for deletion
The article Circular highway shield is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Circular highway shield until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Admrboltz (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Winter 2010 USRD newsletter


JCbot (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your FAC
Hi Freddie. Your FAC was just closed as no consensus (ie not enough people commented... a sad but somewhat common problem at FAC), and the rules state that you can't renominate it for two weeks. However, if/when you do, please leave me a message so I can support the article again. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw. Since it went stale, I'm not surprised it closed no consensus.  I'll try again soon enough. –Fredddie™ 00:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of IA 408
Can you please help me to understand why in an encyclopedia you would delete historical information that was correctly stated and properly referenced. Lu Verne, Iowa Rutland, Iowa Thor, Iowa I do not accept your summary about not being in service for 30 years. I think there are whole articles about other roads that are no longer in existence, for example the roads used by the Romans and other ancient civilizations. These smaller towns starve for relevant information. I see by your contributions that you are a major contributor to Wikipedia and I wish to thank you for your work, even if on this one issue I may disagree. At this time I have not changed those edits of yours and hope you see my point and make the corrections yourself. I also noticed all the cleanup you did on convert templates and again want to thank you. BTW I left an invite for you to join the Communities Division of Project Iowa back in December, I hope you will reconsider and join. I also patrol all Iowa Communities. -- Rife Ideas  Talk  03:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They were properly cited to a self-published source, so I removed it. I could go back to add what roads they're currently served by and cite it to the 2010 state map (a reliable source), but there are hundreds of small towns in Iowa that could have this information added.  I can point the Communities task force to where to get this information.  Improving articles about Iowa's highways gives me plenty to do already, so I politely decline joining. –Fredddie™ 04:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your explanation of being cited to a self published source is more convincing as a reason to delete. That said the site has no advertising and shows no self-serving function and even WP:SELFPUBLISH states  "are largely not acceptable as sources"  and  "may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic"  Although not an "official" source, an internet search shows many other peer sites using it as a source. If there is an official source stating the same information please replace the information with that official reference. If not I am inclined to replace this historic information using the Iowa Highways website as a reference. Understandably currentiy used roadway designations should have official sources. As far as declining to join the Communities Division :( I understand as I have had to decline offers. I will gladly accept your one time offer of pointing us to the correct places to find this information. Transportation is a designated subsection heading under the Infrastructure section found at the WikiProject Cities/US Guideline, and therefore important to us. If you would, please go to WP:IA/C and add a subsection with the resource information on roadways, in the section called Sources for information (still in development). Feel free to name the subsection to whatever you think is suitably named for the subject. FYI the section Coordinates for communities started out as a source subsection but after another expert editor in the field of coordinates User:Stepheng3 finished reworking the subsection it deserved becoming its own section, and I gave him a The Standing Ovation Award for his contribution. (Maybe a little incentive to do a bang up job - hint hint.) I looked over your impressive body of work relating to the roadway system, especially your GA articles, and wanted to thank you for your contributions. In reading the GA review for IA 1, I seen you lamenting about a lack of available pictures on Commons and the distance you would need to travel. Well — I live in Hiawatha, Iowa and can contribute to rectifying that problem. Just let me know what you would like me to take pictures of, the best locations, and the best style or "look" you think would go best in the road articles. I have put your talk page on my watch list for the duration of this conversation, so please respond here. On picture requests (now and in the future) place all of those on my Talk page so I have a record of what to take pictures of. Thanks-- Rife Ideas  Talk  15:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh, thank you! People volunteering to take highway pictures always makes my day.  Any picture of any highway is great.  Check out commons:Category:Roads in Iowa for the style of picture I like to use. –Fredddie™ 23:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Prince Symbol in a Beehive???
Uh, what the heck is this :P? --Admrboltz (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha! Check the WP:USRD/S/R archives.  Someone made a nonsensical request, and NE2 made an off-the-cuff remark about a Prince symbol in a beehive. –Fredddie™ 00:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, there it is... --Admrboltz (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ping
Mind taking another stab at WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 70 in West Virginia? --  Admr Boltz  02:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed your concerns at WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 470 (Ohio – West Virginia) --  Admr Boltz  00:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats!
Let me be the first to congratulate you!

I second the congratulations! --  Admr Boltz  17:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And of course, you can't forget a purdy badge to show the world. Congratulations! -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Great job!!! C T J F 8 3 21:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject U.S. Roads Triple Crown
Vroom, vroom... Thank you for all your hard work. May you wear the crowns well, and may the crown sign lead you on the highway to more outstanding articles. – SMasters (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A favor?
Can you trim the padding around File:FHWA-R3-10.svg? Thanks in advance! --  Admr Boltz  03:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. In Inkscape, all I did was selected the sign, went to Document properties (File menu), clicked the Fit to Selection button, and saved out of everything.  Easy. –Fredddie™ 08:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to know, though I was at work at the time :) --  Admr Boltz  15:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
talkback Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads 02:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Also at WP:US roads signs. Thanks for the help. intelati talk 02:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)   intelati talk  02:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
User talk:Pzoxicuvybtnrm --P C B  02:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Image request for Inter-county Highway signs
Hi. I have noticed you have made many of the black and white County Highway signs for Minnesota. Would you mind also creating a set of Inter-county Highway signs? If you haven't seen them they look just like the square black and white County Highway signs, but instead of county_name / route_number / COUNTY as text, they say INTER- / COUNTY / route_letter and are blue and gold like the pentagonal M1-6 shield for County Highways. I know of "Inter-county J" which is Mille Lac County Highway 20, "Inter-county D" is near North Branch, Minnesota, "Inter-county G" near Stanchfield, Minnesota, and "Inter-county B" through Hackensack, Minnesota. Google search shows an "Inter-county E", which is Todd County Highway 14, near Browerville, Minnesota. But as I don't know if there is a list somewhere of these Inter-county Highways, I don't know what the highest letter is. Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Making them is no problem. I would like to see a picture before I do so.  I'll do some digging on my own, but if you have a link to one, please share it! –Fredddie™ 23:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Try http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/189168_10150165435475681_689150680_8703932_2422620_n.jpg . The gold looks faded even up close and the G looked white instead of faded gold. I'll take a look at "J" to see if the letter itself is white or gold. CJLippert (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's much better than what I was finding. Also, what letters do you want? –Fredddie™ 04:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Spent some time driving and compare/contrast. This is what I have learned:
 * Inter-county J is a square shield of blue/gold with gold route letter
 * Inter-county G and H are the square shield of blue/gold with white route letter
 * Isanti CR that are CSAH, most are the M1-6 that is blue/gold with white route number
 * Isanti CR that are CSAH that are not M1-6 (such as CR 19A) have the square B/W shield
 * So, as for the I-C, lets just go for the 3 I've mentioned for now. I am currently piecing together County roads in Pine County, Minnesota‎. I have used the shields you have already made crossing I-35 in that listing. If you wouldn't mind making the rest (all the Pine CR are now listed, but not all have a description yet) as they are all the square B/W. After I'm done with Pine, I plan on doing Kanabec (also the square B/W but some CR don't have shields or marked with a different one (such as Kanabec CR 23 is marked as Pine CR 7), then Isanti and Mille Lacs. From what I learned today, I will need to spend some time for Isanti to figure out which CSAH there are the Blue/Gold M1-6 with white route number and which are the B/W squares with black route number. Maybe I'll run across I-C D while I'm at it. Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I uploaded the Pine lot to Commons. However, I generally don't make that many CR shields at once...  I'll work on the Inter-county shields now.  –Fredddie™ 00:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Uploaded those three Inter-County shields as well. I set it up so using it with Jct will be seamless.  Here's a proof of concept:  –Fredddie™ 00:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. But as I-C G and H are in Isanti County, would you mind making blue/gold M1-6 with white numbers for Isanti CR 1 through 24 and 28? (I need to go into Cambridge to visually see what CR 27 is, and I already know there are no CR 25, 26 and 29, while CR 19A and CR 30 through 72 are the square B/W (but I'm no where close to even addressing CR 19A and CR 30 through 72). While at it, may I also ask you to make Le Sueur County road shields as well (only CR 1 through 16 and 18 through 20 for now)? Like Pine County, they are the square B/W. Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The lot of Isanti County shields is uploading right now. As I said before I generally don't make that many shields at once.  If you need more, please go through the WP:U.S. Roads shields task force request page.  –Fredddie™ 04:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have my hands full with what you've thrown out there for me, and it will keep me busy for a long while. CJLippert (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Omaha transport templates
I've finished building the templates and have modified the original per your concerns. I hope that you can take a moment to review them and share any feedback you have regarding your TfD nom you made. 184.78.167.223 (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Belated Barnstar
I just realized that I never thanked you for your help with that article, nor congratulated you for US-30 passing FAC. Not sure how I missed that, but geez, what an ungrateful bastard I am. Anyways, thanks for the help. Cheers. Dave (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. Congrats on Thistle as well. –Fredddie™ 21:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Historic MN shields
Thanks a bunch for making those.

I don't have Inkscape (multiple attempts at getting it to work have done nothing more than eliminate my browser's capability to display SVGs), but will that sample be just what the bot needs to create the set? (Sorry for the late note, I've been too busy to get on here much and when I am most of my time is spent dealing with a serial vandal.) --Sable232 (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the bot won't be able to make them. And since you're unable to use Inkscape, it's doubly unfortunate.  When you open up the file, the numbers are located below what will be visible to the viewer.  I suppose we could ask for some help at WP:USRD/S/R to get a set done quickly. –Fredddie™ 21:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Autopistas de Puerto Rico logo shield
Hello there. Just to let you know, last October I made a suggestion for you to make an SVG of the Autopistas de Puerto Rico logo shield. I was wondering, how is it going? I really would like to add it to the PR-22, PR-52, PR-53, and PR-66 articles. ANDROS1337 TALK 02:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a good source, but I lost it. Thus, no shield. –Fredddie™ 03:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Maps
I created a map for Ohio State Route 201, but it appears very small. Is there any way to fix it? Please respond on my talk page. Route11Talk:Route11 04:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a talk page stalker (TPS) commenting here, but our maps should be about 290x172 (width x height) in proportion. Your map on SR 201 is roughly three times taller than wide, so the infobox constrains it to the 172 pixels in height, making it appear quite narrow. This size limitation is done to keep US highway infoboxes from being too long on the page. (We also limit to 10 junctions maximum in an infobox for the same reason.) You can create an updated version of the map that is closer to the 290x172 proportions, and that will fix the issue. The best maps include some sort of inset to help provide a frame of reference for non-Ohioan or non-American readers as well. Ideally, if you can create SVGs or PNGs, you should (in that order of preference) over JPGs for maps. If you create a new JPG version of the map that's wider in width, upload it as a new version of the original and it will replace the current version.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You Do not need to respond now I fixed it with Imzadi1979 advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Route11 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter, Spring 2011

 * —Rschen7754bot (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive
So I found an older (2006) article that should have been put under MI project long ago. The article is in good shape, and I'm playing the WP:IAR card and omitting a RJL from it for now since it's essentially a road that loops back on itself. (I might try to find the sources to use the scenic lookout points as "junctions" in the future to make a similar table.) The article could use a marker graphic, based on the sign here. As for the Logo on the sign, we have File:US-NationalParkService-ShadedLogo.svg. I wouldn't need the arrow, just the signboard itself. No rush on this one, so whenever this year is cool.  Imzadi 1979  →   10:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

US 66 task force
I joined your task force, and have updated the US History template. However, it does not appear to work. I am not sure why and am trying to get help to fix it. - Presidentman (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 21:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The template was fixed. - Presidentman (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 20:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also created all the importance and quality categories. - Presidentman (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also asked WP:BIOG if they would help out. - Presidentman (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 20:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Florida's Turnpike SR 91 Shield
You are not to remove the Florida State Road 91 shield from the Florida's Turnpike article. This is the actual State designation for that toll road.


 * Show me an SR 91 shield anywhere along the turnpike and I'll put it back with bells on. –Fredddie™ 23:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You might as welll remove the SR 821 from the Homestead Extension of Florida's Turnpike article since that's a hidden designation as well while your at it. –Silvers 19:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ –Fredddie™ 02:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 05286d34d0af37f19b19fae3ba01f733
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! –Fredddie™ 02:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Davenport collage
Feel free to weigh in at User_talk:Farragutful. C T J F 8 3 22:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bias in town choices
You still haven't given justification for removing intermediate towns. Dogru144 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

NM 528
About the name of NM 528 in Rio Rancho, Rio Rancho Boulevard is the previous name of the road before it was renamed to Pat D'Arco Highway in 2007. However, many maps and addresses continue to refer to it by that name. ANDROS1337 TALK 16:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt this is the case; however, there are two issues. One, it wasn't cited on the article.  And two, I checked a few intersections on Google StreetView and the street signs still show it as Rio Rancho Blvd.  Now, I could see the StreetView being out of date, but the first issue needs resolution. –Fredddie™ 00:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRN request
This is to let you know that there is a post involving you at the dispute resolution noticeboard. --Rschen7754 05:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Rhode Island maps
Thank you! I'm also using QGIS, along with shapefiles from the RIGIS database. I just downloaded Inkscape so I can save the PNG images exported from QGIS as SVG. How are you cleaning up the images in inkscape? When I tried to follow the instructions for modifying the png in this tutorial, the image quality was greatly reduced. Also, when I export directly to SVG from QGIS, the resulting file is so large that my computer freezes when I try to open it in inkscape to refine it (as described here). --Schzmo (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an issue with defining how large the window is. I learned how to make my maps the same way, it's a trial-and-error process. –Fredddie™ 22:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Happy birthday!
Hi, I just happened upon your user page today and I noticed that it was your birthday yesterday! So happy belated birthday! :D  Theking 17825  05:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of consensus issue
In this archived discussion it is claimed that, in this other archived discussion, "the consensus has been to avoid geocoding the articles until a satisfactory way to display the coordinates without cluttering the articles is found.". I wonder whether, as a participant in the latter discussion, you could kindly say whether or not that was your conclusion at its end, and if so, on what grounds? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it, but where would you like me to comment? –Fredddie™ 22:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's fine; thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The way I read the WP:HWY link, a number of editors, myself included, support the addition of geospatial information in some fashion. My concern then, and I still hold it, is that it has to be done right.

The Infobox road link, my take is that the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article, so coordinates wouldn't be a good place for them there. Yes, I'm aware that many, many infoboxes have coordinates already.

In the past, I warmed up to the idea of adding coordinates as an inline reference at certain junctions with the coord and kml templates listed directly below the junction list (example). This would essentially render the clutter argument moot. But, since I've been shown the Osmrelation template, I prefer that method. But things may change.

The underlying theme in both links, plus the current "discussions" in the various forums, is that when you start pointing fingers and don't work together, bad things happen. As we've seen, combative attitudes and statements lead to pissing matches. Instead of citing WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT at every opportune moment, try to work with us roads editors. Instead of trying to find a unanimous vote from three years ago, just assume good faith that we all want to improve the encyclopedia and work here in the present. Yes, I know the roads editors haven't been saints, either. A little tact on both sides goes a long way.

If we can drop all of the crap that's happened, we CAN come up with a solution. I want to, but I don't want to work with someone who won't compromise. That's why I bowed out of the other discussions. –Fredddie™ 23:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in, but I agree with Fredddie's comments. If you demand to have everything your way and insist on tagging every junction on the road, we're not going to get anywhere. If you demand on calling us "anti-coordinate" (which most of us are not) and use inflammatory phrases like "they're banning coordinates from articles" we're not going to get anywhere. And I'm sort of disappointed in the 1-2 editors who are anti-coordinate, but that's another deal. I'm asking you to calmly and politely come to the discussion table and we can work out a compromise that makes everyone happy. There have been many "outsiders" (for lack of a better term) who have amicably resolved their differences with the roads editors. One example was the implementation of WP:ALT a year or two ago. We were unaware about the guideline until a FAC, and had it mentioned to us. Then, we worked with the editor that brought up this concern and came to a solution that worked for all U.S. road articles. Once we complied with WP:ALT in a way that worked for us and him, he retracted the objection and we moved on with life. There have been others who have insisted on having their way and have been unwilling to compromise. All that has resulted in are fights. So if you can come back to the table in a peaceful manner and are willing to compromise and work with us (and we would do the same, of course), we can work something out, have some geotags on the articles, and all go home happy. --Rschen7754 01:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would assert that that is what I'm trying to do in section 4. You need to understand that I just plain do not understand your position. By way of example, I'm reading today's FA and am staggered to find that there's not a single link tying this to external maps. And there's a three column table in there which seems to me to be the perfect place to link the noteworthy features of the road to a map. Finally, I really would urge you to drop with "we" and "outsiders" business. These are not your articles. These are all our articles - yours and mine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Not all of it's addressed at you, it's to the coordinate editors in general. --Rschen7754 03:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to ascribe several views to me; please cite them. As to "come back to the table in a peaceful manner…", it is you, and you alone, who has announced an an unwillingness to participate in discussion at WP:DRN - in a topic which you opened up. If you do want a real dialogue; please also provide the citations for the claims you made on WP:DRN, as I requested there. Also, your further reference to "outsiders" apparently shows that you still do not understand WP:OWN; there are no "outsiders" to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Freddie - you view of the lack of consensus in that debate coincides with mine. As to "compromise", please remember that the status quo - including WP:LINEAR the examples in WP:RJL, and the disputed addition I made to WP:RJL - is a compromise. I don't see anyone "trying to find a unanimous vote from three years ago", but I am asking for citations for assertions presented as facts. While the OSM template has some value, it doesn't provide the functionality for our readers, that is provided by an KML  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone "trying to find a unanimous vote from three years ago", but I am asking for citations for assertions presented as facts. You say tomahto, I say tomayto.  Just drop it, assume good faith that we're not blowing smoke out our rear ends, and move forward.  We can't move forward until you do; we'll just keep going in circles.  –Fredddie™ 14:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not prepared to AGF when people are making claims which they cannot substantiate, having already made demonstrably false claims; thus effectively ''blowing smoke…' as you put it. Forward progression is not being held up by me. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you admit to assuming bad faith this whole time? –Fredddie™ 15:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion
Fredddie has volunteered his talk page as a place to discuss things in the interim, since the DRN has closed. I've copied the last few things said there over here. --Rschen7754 07:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Because you've totally misrepresented our position. We, the roads editors, are not anti-coordinate. So why would I make arguments against coordinate tagging when I don't even hold that position? I, in fact, added coordinate tags to the article for my former high school. But, if done improperly, poor coordinate tagging is worse than no coordinate tagging. We would like to tag the articles, but we want to do it in an orderly way. Can we both agree on the following? It's not much, but it's a start.


 * 1) In some form, we want coordinates on road articles.
 * 2) Improper coordinate tagging is worse than no coordinate tagging at all.
 * 3) We need to be pretty darn careful on what gets tagged on a road article; we don't just want to tag random points on the road.
 * 4) Selecting what points get tagged on a road article may involve compromise; we can't just put coordinates every 500 feet. --Rschen7754 01:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologise. It is easy to misread your position as being anti-geo-coordinates, not least from statements such as "5. The US Roads project does not want them; "decided at WT:USRD back in 2008"'. I'm unsure what you mean when you talk of "Improper coordinate tagging". No-one has suggested that we should have coordinates every 500 feet, that I know of. The suggestion that has been made is that each road junction listed in the table of road junctions should have a coordinate. The basis of that suggestion is that these are to points of interest in a road junction list. I think you know that that is the nub of the argument, but if not, I would ask you to proceed on the basis of that understanding. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For example, look at Oklahoma State Highway 74. Tagging the midpoint would be a very bad idea here, because the road exists in two pieces. Also, look at California State Route 99. It would probably take several hours just to tag every single junction in this article, and for what benefit? Very few people will want to save the coordinates for the intersection of SR 99 and Laval Road - does anyone even exit there!? (Sometimes in rural areas, the DOT is required to put a junction at a certain location to provide residents access - that doesn't mean that the location is notable). A better option would be only doing 10-15 coordinates, tagging the most major junctions (and the most likely to be searched for) and the viewer can still get a somewhat accurate representation of the road. Basically, it's marginal cost and marginal benefit from economics. Will a first coordinate tag be worth the time it takes to find the coordinate on a map and insert it into the article? Yes. How about the second? Yes.... How about the 16th? Probably not, so we shouldn't add a 16th tag.


 * One more example - Interstate 10 in California. Does it make any sense to tag every one of the first 8 junctions since they are so close together, when they all can be viewed quite reasonably on the same map? --Rschen7754 01:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "8 junctions… so close together": All the more reason to geocode them, then; that way, our readers can zoom into a map, with the KML overlaid, and see which is which. In attempting to determine "the most likely to be searched for", you're ascribing your own views or needs to others; you - nor I or anyone else - can't know what they will want. And if a junction isn't notable, why is it in the article in the first place? If someone wants to spend "several hours just to tag every single junction in [an] article", we shouldn't stop them; Wikipedia does not have deadlines. Besides, they may have the data to hand, from a reliable source. That said, it's good that you now seem to appreciate the benefits of coordinate templates, and I look forward to working towards a solution which is acceptable to all concerned. Perhaps this discussion should now go back to WP:RJL? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa. Please slow down. We're giving an inch and you're taking a mile. Any solution mandating or even allowing every single junction to be tagged on a long route is not going to get anywhere. It's been stated already; if you refuse to accept past consensus discussions, look at the present - there will be strong opposition. And yes, I am speaking for all the roads editors - I am one myself, and I've sat in #wikipedia-en-roads for years - I'd venture to say that you get to know someone's Wikipedia views decently well if you talk to them on IRC for a few years. If you insist on tagging or allowing the tagging of every road junction, then we might as well shut this discussion down. It's on a user talk page for a reason.
 * But virtually everyone's on board with tagging the 10-15 most important junctions / landmarks on a route. It would be a shame to not go through with it just because 1-2 editors effectively state "I want to tag every single junction and I will settle for nothing less, opposition be darned." Can you swallow your pride and agree to compromise here so we can get a solution that furthers the encyclopedia, rather than furthers Pigsonthewing? --Rschen7754 13:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know for Interstate 10 in Texas, the number of instances of Jct in the junction list alone went over Mediawiki's template counter and the last 20-or-so instances were broken, that is, they didn't produce the route marker graphic. So that page, unless there is a non-template way to add coordinates, is going to be really hard to tag. –Fredddie™ 14:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding one, or three, sets of coordinates would be really hard how, exactly? besides, we don't make decisions on how to write the majority of articles based on a few extreme examples, which can be dealt with if and hen they arise. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying if you add coordinates for every junction on I-10, it will break the page. Pure and simple.  I also removed your name calling and the flat-out lies.  You don't seem to be reading what Rschen is typing. –Fredddie™ 15:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Because Freddie is censoring this page, I'm moving the discussion to WT:RJL Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We were having a nice discussion until you started making inflammatory comments again. I will not be taking part in them on RJL.  Enjoy. –Fredddie™ 15:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, you flat-out lied and I removed it. Are you reading the same page I am? –Fredddie™ 15:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just thought I'd throw it out here, since this is the most active point of discussion at this point, that I have been fiddling with regex and google/bing maps. It is possible, using only coordinates (two sets in this case) to call up the "get directions" service, and draw a path along a road. There is far more promise in looking at this avenue than figuring the ins and outs of individual latitudes and longitudes. (Also I will not be following to RJL. Your commentary has simply become a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, Andy.) -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  15:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

User:204.111.64.196
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Over-aggressive warnings/ blocking of User:204.111.64.196. Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons
Thank you for helping clean up the mess left by. But you are using a slightly wrong speedy tag - the proper images are on the Cpmmons/ &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry. I blame Twinkle. –Fredddie™ 22:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter

 * — JCbot (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol
Hi Fredddie, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Rschen7754 07:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin Highway 61
I'm not going to stop the deletion. —  master son T - C 04:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Route 77 in Iowa at GAN
Hello, Fredddie. I reviewed the article you nominated at GAN, and you can find my comments here. Nice work; just a few little things to wrap up, and you are all set. --Starstriker7(Talk) 08:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. What can I do?
Hello Fredddie, I am one of your newest user's. USroute66. Since you are part of the United states road system I would like to join (since I really love roads) but I need a place to start. Can you help me. Please.

--USroute66 (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Sorry to disappoint, but I've been throwing up all day. Cookies won't exactly settle my stomach. –Fredddie™ 02:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Former state highways in South Dakota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Murdo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)