User talk:Imzadi1979/Archive 8

CSS styling in templates
Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Suffixed Interstate Highways
I added a third because there are three existing Interstate Highways in the United States that have the "W" suffix and that is Interstate 35W in Texas, Interstate 35W in Minnesota, and Interstate 69W in Texas. Just like that there are three existing Interstate Highways in the United States that have the "E" suffix and that is Interstate 35E in Texas, Interstate 35E in Minnesota, and Interstate 69E in Texas. Of course Interstate 69C in Texas is the only existing Interstate Highway in the United States to have the "C" suffix. NJRobbie (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Interstate 480N exists too, it's not just those three. Cards84664 (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not add one with an N and another with an S? In short, why do we need a third at all? Really, it becomes unneeded clutter, .  Imzadi 1979  →   02:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJRobbie (talk • contribs) 02:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

New FA? Nicely done Congratulations
Dave (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We're now one FA away from bumping Michigan's Interstate topic from GT to FT.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I-164
According to the article on Interstate 164, it no longer exists. No where can I find that it has not been completely replaced by I-69. If it in fact still exists, please divert me to a page to prove this. Interstate 164 should not be listed as still existing on the highway list but not on its own page. Che-or (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * from the end of Interstate 164: "A short 0.69-mile (1.11 km) section of I-164 west of US 41 is still designated as I-164, but is not signed and no longer directly connected to its parent route, I-64. " The article contradicts itself and needs to be fixed, assuming people will leave the corrected facts alone.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 24
I have a question about the infobox browse links used on Interstate 24. For a while they have been used to link Interstate 22 and Interstate 25. Is this something that is supposed to put in place in other national articles? Cards84664 (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally, we have not used any browse on purely national articles' infoboxes; if we had browsers on those articles, they'd be for the states without separate articles and listed at the bottom of the article, linking to the highways in said states that come before and after.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Portal:Michigan Highways
I've noticed that the selected article and picture for P:MISH hasn't been updated since January and right now those sections of the portals are redlinks. Were you planning on getting back to updating the portal on a monthly basis or do you maybe want to look into a different way of running the portal by setting up content to randomly rotate? Something needs to be done since it is a Featured Portal or otherwise it might lose its status for not being kept up to date.  Dough   4872   00:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It may be moot, see WP:VPP. --Rschen7754 00:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * On it...  Imzadi 1979  →   00:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Route 66
I noticed at this edit you changed "Wheeler County, Texas" to "Wheeler County, TX". In your edit summary you wrote "use captions in abbreviations, allowable per MOS".

MOS:POSTABBR states: "abbreviations of place names (e.g. Calif. (California), TX (Texas), Yorks. (Yorkshire) should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text". Also WP:CAPTION states "The text of captions should not be specially formatted (with italics, for example), except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text."  MOS:CAPTION states the same.  Where is this allowable per MOS?  Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The usage of abbreviations is allowed to conserve space in places like infoboxes, tables and captions. Also, when done properly, by linking to the unabbreviated name, readers unfamiliar with the abbreviation can hover their cursors over the link to get the expanded form: Wheeler County, TX.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Battle Creek
It looks like M-37/BL I-94 in Battle Creek was recently rerouted off Skyline Drive on the west side of Battle Creek, but the articles on those highways have not been updated to reflect this. Could you please help me locate sources to verify this? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Former U.S. 270
On the USRD page, I started a section on the former US 270. However, no one has left any kind of reply to it. Do you have any comments or thoughts? Yes, I know at least one of the links I left was an SPS, but it was an easy link at the time. Thank you. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:QLINE
What WP:MOS or guideline says that this is wrong? Useddenim (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * first off, the Fisher Freeway is not named for one person, but the Fisher Brothers of the Fisher Body Works. So the link there was only half right. In eliminating that error, that drops one link. As for the second, common sense says that I-94 there is the "Edsel Ford Freeway", which is its own proper name as a distinct naming unit. We would never split up a person's name by separately linking his or her first name apart from his or her last name. You should never see "Edsel Ford" anywhere, so why would it be ok to link the first part of a highway name only? And just to put it out there, the third change was a matter of consistency since the template had "Fwy" and "Freeway"; abbreviate or not consistently or things look sloppy.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Center Line
Why is it that you seem to want to publish the newsletter with a mistake? Phil roc My contribs 11:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a mistake. We also don't list the previous quarter, we list everything back to the last issue. In short, leave it alone for now, because it will be sorted and fixed when published.  Imzadi 1979  →   11:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

About becoming an administrator
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia so far; they are very much appreciated. Your experience and tenure have been an asset to the project.

Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator? It can be enjoyable, challenging, and a great way to help Wikipedia.

If you would like to find out about your chances of a successful RfA, please visit:


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Thank you!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Dequindre Road
Hi,

After a quick look at WP:WikiProject Highways, I'm getting the impression that it does cover roads. Indeed, WP:WikiProject roads redirects there. Are you sure it's out of scope? Adam9007 (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * yes it is. First off, Dequindre is in the US, and American highways are in the scope of WP:USRD, not WP:HWY. However, USRD doesn't deal with roads that aren't state highways or major numbered county roads, and Dequindre Road fails to meet those classifications. Assuming we didn't have that US-specific subproject, it still wouldn't quite fit, because HWY's scope is aimed more at numbered highway systems internationally rather than local roads like Dequindre.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Bump
It looks like M-37/BL I-94 in Battle Creek was recently rerouted off Skyline Drive on the west side of Battle Creek, but the articles on those highways have not been updated to reflect this. Could you please help me locate sources to verify this? Noticed that you bumped this message off your talkpage without responding. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

WT:TFA
Hi Imzadi, posting here because the ping probably didn't work (I added it after I signed). Suggestions are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI, See also
The relevant section of the MOS is at It's not an absolute rule that links can't be repeated in the See also section, it's a "general rule". However, at the end of the the day it's a judgement call as to which style guide rule to break, short level 2 sections or a see also that includes repeated links in order to preserve a logical order. (Having two short level 2 headings on related subjects is not advised in most style guides, although I've never read anything in Wikipedia's MOS on the subject). With that said I don't have a dog in the fight and don't plan to pursue anything further. Either way the article could use some polish. Dave (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to list the related routes in a dedicated section with some prose for context. That's certainly what several FAs do already. Yeah, it's a short section, but I don't see that as a problem since it's clearly a separate topic within the framework of the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

GDOT county maps
Per the IRC chat, I tried setting up a template to cite a map, but I need to go to sleep. I am pasting what I have so far, to see what you think. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 87 (New York)
Hello, I'm ActivBowser9177. You've undid my edit to change the link from I-495 NC to Future Interstate Highways in Interstate 87. However, Future Interstate Highways is better than the link to I-495 NC. I haven't rechanged it yet because I want to let you know before changing. For example, I-87 NC redirects into I-495 NC. The corridor goes from Raleigh NC to Norfolk VA, but the infobox at that page says Raleigh to the VA state line. At Future Interstate Highways, the infobox for that corridor gives the two actual endpoints. You should know that the actual north end for that corridor is Norfolk, not the VA state line. Also, the length is different. Future Interstate Highways gives the true length as 192 miles, while I-495 NC is off by 13 miles short. Have Questions? Do you disagree? Thanks ActivBowser9177 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * long term, the I-495 article will become the I-87 article as the highway is expanded and redesignated. At the same time, the section on the Future list will be removed. So at the present, we might as well work toward a) improving the I-495 article and b) pointing our readers there. The section within the Future list should always only be a summary of another article if that other article exists, which it does.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Imzadi, that makes more sense, but if you actually care, we should modify the infobox in I-495 NC. ActivBowser9177 (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

African Highway taskforce template
OK needs some work - tagging wise.

Wikiproject Highways|Africa=yes   .... shows as Wikiproject mid importance, and africa Wikiproject Highways|importance=NA|Africa=yes  ..... shows as wikiproject and nothing else

if you are interested in getting someone to help tag the talk pages - methinks a bit of template tewaking/tweaking - cheers  JarrahTree 06:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The template was defaulted to Mid-importance because the overwhelming majority of untagged articles fall under Mid. It's just a matter of finding the ones that are not Mid-importance and tagging them correctly. –Fredddie™ 10:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Very useful to know - but as the tagging was to start with categories - the above case is trying to start tag categories - categories are usually not involved with importance or class - - most tagging I do doesnt meet the glitch.

Maybe for this weirdness, it requires importance=NA and class=Category to get through the issue, but then Africa didnt show up when coding the importance.... Hope you might help - page watcher or whoever JarrahTree 11:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the importance will go away (or should if it doesn't) if you tag it with an importance-less class, Redirect comes to mind. –Fredddie™ 21:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

do you have links to some specific examples to illustrate your question succinctly?  Imzadi 1979  →   17:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

will try - we know that works - it is something that works

when I wish to tag a project page such as Category talk:Project-Class Africa road transport articles I must use the same

the problem arises when trying to tag category pages as opposed to project pages... for instance Category_talk:Roads_in_Benin

Importance=NA must be inserted for the category to be tagged correctly - so Freddie is correct... sorry to have taken up your time solved - by simply adding importance NA when tagging cats, and project for project pages - JarrahTree 00:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for page links. Link me to specific pages where the template is in use that has an issue to illustrate your question. Otherwise, I can't understand what your issue is.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * OK go to category talk:roads in benin - check the difference - when tagged it comes up with the importance - I went in and changed it, and it s now correct... JarrahTree 00:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So you want me to look at Category talk:Roads in Benin, ? (Seriously, it's really helpful to actually link in your talk page comments.) Ok, well, first off, you didn't set category, and this template really requires the class to be set. Yes, it auto-detects based on namespace, but yet if you don't set it, it doesn't auto-set importance and such.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

clearly the coding in the template is eccentric compared o most templates - most templates default to nothing, whereas the roads has mid importance - even for the category status JarrahTree 00:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually while we speak - Freddie has corrected my tag from importance to class = category - so it is now in every sense correct. It clearly was my problem by not investigating that option - sorry to have wasted your and freddies time - now the handle on the issue is clearly fixed. Also apology for not giving you hard linked examples - there is a tendency on talk page taggers such as self to talk in shorthand - sorry about that. JarrahTree 00:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please look at, you have to specify the class. The template uses standard  parameters and syntax, so there is nothing odd about the coding.  The template also has namespace detection, which is also standard; however, it too is not perfect. –Fredddie™ 00:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

yup, nothing is - sorry folks - too used to templates where there is no need to specify class=cat anymore - thanks for putting up with my dumb tagging - and thanks for clarifying things - have a good day as they say! JarrahTree 00:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

odot control template issue
I'm dropping you a note because you were the last editor to work on the Template:Odot control back in 2015. Is there any way you could look at the date error that template is now throwing? I think it is probably something as simple as a missing year on the current date construct, but I'm not familiar with editing templates. Thanks! Zeugzeug (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the code was trying to do, but it looked like it was trying to make up a date for each otherwise undated map, so I've tossed out the code and used a citation standard instead to indicate that the maps are not dated.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! All those pages look much better with that corrected! Zeugzeug (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Otsego county highway 34
Would you be able to tell me how I go about making highway shields for the page. I would like to learn so I can do it on future articles if need be? Thanks Tripp155 (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * there is a tutorial on how to make marker graphics. You'll need a vector graphics editing program like Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator to open and edit the SVG template. You'll also need the appropriate fonts and the template for the appropriate marker design. Once you have those things, you can follow the directions in the tutorial to create the desired graphics. Just remember to follow the established naming convention when you save the file and upload it to Commons or infobox road and jct can't find the graphic.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

abbreviated journal names
At Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 8, you wrote, "I wish many of our editors would heed the advice to stop using the overly abbreviated journal names in deference to our non-academic readers." I agree with you, but, can you tell me please, where is that advice, because I want to reference it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Many journals use highly abbreviated titles when citing other journals (e.g. "J Am Vet Med" for "Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association") because specialists in the field the journal covers usually already know what these abbreviations mean. Our readers do not, so these abbreviations should always be expanded" at Help:Citation Style 1 for just one place where it is spelled out and why.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I edited Citing sources correspondingly. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Antarctic Traverse
You removed photo from 1956 stating you did not see relevance. Relevance is: in 2006 a US Government agency was spending money to see if a overland traverse was feasible. The image posted not only showed that it had been done before it had been done on a huge scale. That would seem to relevent. An analysis of the 2006 traverse image and the 1956 image show a disparity of organization that seems to have escaped you. There are readers that would find the comparison not only enlightening but relevant. Your citing that age of the photo indicates you may have a ageism bias which certainly draws into question you pov.Mcb133aco (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * maybe that is something that should have been discussed in the prose? As it is, it was a photo with a lengthy caption that would require readers to understand military jargon (just what type of equipment is a "LGP D8" anyway? a tractor?) and it lacked any statement of significance. An old photo without state context isn't very relevant.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but since my education is in the visual arts I do think "a picture is worth a thousand words".  The disparity of those two images is best understood visually.  You again show a bias in your thought process by assumming the terminology is military.  It is not.  It is the construction industry acronym for Low Ground Pressure.  As to your stating  "no Context" for the "Old photo"  The article concerns a traverse from McMurdo Antarctica to the So. Pole in 2006 and the photo you removed depicts the exact same thing in 1956 and you find no relevance.  I think an administrator should review your comments and pov that is what I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcb133aco  (talk • contribs) 00:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I see the origins of our mutual misunderstandings here. You're referencing Operation Deep Freeze from 1955–56, and we've written an article about the South Pole Traverse, a snow road built in the 21st century. They're separate topics, albeit somewhat related. We'd need more prose content that isn't littered with unexplained acronyms/jargon (whether military or construction industry, without explanation "LGP D8" is meaningless to the general reader) to connect the two topics together and provide context for why a 1956 photo is appearing in an article about a roadway built in 2007.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What exactly is an admin going to do? Anyway, I think a paragraph about the 1956 trek, illustrated by the photo, would do a better job of giving context to the reader than trying to cram everything into the caption of said picture. –Fredddie™ 02:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, but my opinion is unchanged.Mcb133aco (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * unfortunately, I don't think we can really do much comparing and contrasting from the 1956 photo and the modern photos. That's in the realm of original research except for blatantly obvious (to a non-specialist) details, and that's not allowed by policy. Context is still everything, and this article is about a snow road in the 21st century. Except for pertinent background information, the 1956 stuff doesn't fit.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I will request an administrator. Mcb133aco (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Superstreet
Frist, the source is a blog. 2nd, Is is not my contrib. 3rd, several intersections of Route 280 have been renewed. There are Superstreets and Michigan lefts now. 4th, never trust a blog. 5th, do not have the blog have the last word, even when simply and true said: IT IS WRONG. 6th, stop edit warring me. 7th, You have also removed sources, I added where citations where needed. 8th, I would think to report You for vandalism, when no stopping edit warring. 9th, I might have a different opinion, but I have respected Your opinion. But no, You went really violent. As Wikipedia must be reviewable, it should show its sources and coordinates, even to know where we are talking about. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 06:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * it's not a "blog" in the strictest sense, even though it has that word in the URL. Several news media outlets call sections of their websites by that name, but for Wikipedia policy purposes, they're still news sources because they're supervised by, and subject to, the same editors and oversight as the rest of the news website. In this case, that is an article written by a staff reporter for The Birmingham News there in Alabama, and it should be regarded as such. If you're going to dispute the content, you need to supply a source and not disregard it. Perhaps you're right and intersections have been reconstructed since 2013, but we would need newer sources. You have not supplied any.
 * You have not added citations in those edits. Coordinates alone are not a citation. They are numbers that inline in that fashion are meaningless to most readers and just clutter the text.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See →, . And the example in Mexico simply no RCUT/MUT, it's a TX-U, already moved to TX-U article. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 07:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * then you should update the article using that source instead of just wholesale discounting a valid source. To be perfectly honest, we have way too many examples in these intersection and interchange articles. We only need a few representative examples of the concept, including notable cases like the first usage, and then the rest can be purged.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the historical part, but it is information where such intersection design is being used. Therefore, I have removed statements which could not be reviewed in any way. About the sources, the last word should be given by the civil engineers, regarding what is a super street or Michigan left. Again, You have wasted me more than an hour. As You think to maintain all road relevant articles in the Wikipedia, have it, but I see this ending up in far away from Idea of Wikipedia, or providing valid or useful information. EOD. Any next revert or similar undo will be reported as vadalism. You are warned. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 07:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * and here I was about to tell you to do as you see fit, even if I think you're severely degrading the quality of these articles and doing our readers a disservice by disregarding what actual sources say in favor of your own interpretation of primary facts.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Interstate Highways
Concise has a limit. There is nothing wrong with giving readers a tiny bit more of an idea about the four double-used numbers, rather than forcing them to do a treasure hunt through the list of 68 highways. Even tougher is I-74, which is your own little secret (and now mine, because you told me) if some sort of an explanation is not given - at least the other four can eventually be found by readers who have been forced to go searching through the list, but your interpretation of 74 being used twice is not at all obvious in the list. Why not give the average reader a break with a few extra words and one extra sentence - rather than make this a treasure hunt challenge (with missing clues)? Jmg38 (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And we need to add to the issue the second I-87 that's been approved in North Carolina but not yet signed and probably separate the second I-74 out in the table since it's unlikely to ever be connected since WV isn't building I-73 or I-74. We should work on the table first and then decide if additional text is needed. I don't think we need to list the duplicate numbers in the prose as long as they are listed in the table properly.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

RE: Marquette, Michigan Frederic Baraga Postal Card
I took a look at the reference you provided, and there is no mention of anything taking place in Marquette on that date. Would you please explain how the content is supported by the reference? Perhaps I am missing something. Thanks. - Tystnaden (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update! - Tystnaden (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Route 10 See Also article links
Please quit undoing my edit! Those articles are not a "link farm" as you put it. Those routes are every bit a part of US 10, and deserve their place there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.187.64 (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * per the MOS, links already present in the body of the article should not be added to a see also section, so the Washington SR 10 link didn't belong there. I've added the MT 10 link to the appropriate section of the history, and the others should not be added as former US 10As, which would be listed elsewhere. Yes, it was a link farm because you were adding anything with a tenuous connection, regardless of utility.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

County routes in Ogemaw County
I've mentioned before that all the "F" routes in Ogemaw County are still signed in the field. I found that this map verifies all of them. Would this be an acceptable source? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * but MDOT doesn't recognize them and label them on their maps anymore. Ogemaw County could have independently decided to designate and sign county roads in a manner to complement the CDH scheme, even continue to designate CRs under old CDH numbers, but that doesn't make them MDOT-approved CDHs.  Imzadi 1979  →  12:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Move/rename?
Hi. I know exactly zero about standard practice for roads articles. Question: Can Harlem River Drive (officially designated the 369th Harlem Hellfighters Drive) be move/renamed to 369th Harlem Hellfighters Drive? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * since the common name would still be Harlem River Drive, that is what we would title the street. Additional, memorial, names might end up as redirects, but unless they completely displace the original name (like Martin Luther King Jr Blvd replacing Logan Street in Lansing), then we wouldn't retitle the article.  Imzadi 1979  →  12:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, tks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Montenegro roads help
Hello, I am currently trying to correct naming and categories of roads in Montenegro. I've seen you helped, and I see you are rather experienced with wiki. Could you check M-6_highway_(Montenegro)? Am I doing it the right way. I am trying to preserve historical changes in articles, so I am moving them around if needed (e.g. previous M-6 is now M-7, and I moved it, and changed accordingly, but I also have that parts of previous M-8 are now included in new M-6, which I cannot move there, as redirect to M-7 is still there. I will also need then to move from my userpage new M-8 to the old M-8 place, after it is moved to M-6, and after redirection at M-6 is deleted. Yeah, I know :)). This deleting part is slowing me down, so, I just want to know, am I doing it right? If yes, I will slowly change everything.Requiem mn (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're going about everything the proper way, .  Imzadi 1979  →   04:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks. Speedy deletions seems to be rather slow at the moment. Requiem mn (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to ping Imzadi1979, not me? I'm not an admin, so I can't act on your speedy deletion requests. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Andrew FAC
Hi Imzadi. First and foremost I want to thank you for taking a look at the references in the Hurricane Andrew article. With a few exceptions, I have worked on the comments you left. Aside from references in templates (do I need to fix those?), I wasn't sure what to do with the first two comments under "You should also audit the citations...". Do you have examples of how I didn't follow those guidelines or were you just putting that information there? Again, thank you for your time--12george1 (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Disneyland Railroad FAC source review
In the source review you started here: Featured article candidates/Disneyland Railroad/archive1, I believe everything is now resolved, but I imagine there needs to be some sort of acknowledgement on your part ("everything's good now", "everything looks good", etc.) on that page to close that portion of the article's FA review. Please do so after reading this message. I would prefer to have this resolved today.  Jackdude 101  21:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Walt Disney World Railroad featured article nomination
Well, I nominated another one: Featured article candidates/Walt Disney World Railroad/archive1. I applied the same fixes to this article while I was fixing the Disneyland Railroad article and it's shorter, so getting this one reviewed will probably be quicker. When you have a moment, take a look at its sources to see if their formatting is ship-shape, please.  Jackdude 101  00:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"South end" vs. "Southern end"
I thought either one works. And all other articles for California highways employ "South end", so what's wrong with keeping the consistency between the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.223.138 (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * the standard nationally is moving to the -ern form as better grammar. Consistently doing things badly is good for consistency but still bad for quality.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And can I ask about "concurrency" vs. "overlap"? Why is the former one better grammar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.223.138 (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a consistency issue with the color key at the bottom of the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi! Thank you for backing me up on Template:State roads in Turkey. The reason I changed the color in the first place was exactly because of the reason you stated. Thanks and cheers! (Central Data Bank (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC))

Thought you might find this interesting
"Cloverland Highway Open." 273 cars! Might be useful for US-2 in Michigan. My dad speculates that San Souci is an inn that used to stand around there, but I can't find anything on the internet about it outside of the now-demolished bridge that used it as a nickname. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Resurrected from your archives—I took a photo of the current bridge tonight that I've added to the article! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Andrew FAC
Hello again. I left a comment on that page about it over two weeks ago. I'm not mad at you if you didn't see it because I didn't ping you. I fixed the locations for the references. I'm still not completely sure what you were asking me to do with those remaining comments. I took a guess but it didn't quite make sense. I want to keep this going so it doesn't get archived due to lack of activity. Thanks!--12george1 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Superior National Forest Scenic Byway Edits
Thanks for making some of the edits to the page. I'm the intern for ARDC and the SNFSB is a project area for us. I was unable to proof read before I got done yesterday to make sure it looked good. So thank you for catching some of those issues.

One thing however that I was surprised at was you took out the section about the connections located on the SNFSB. Now understand we do a lot of work for the North Shore Scenic Drive (wiki-page Minnesota State Highway 61) and I was told to follow the same kind of design that was used for that wiki-post for this one. A separate page for the North Shore Scenic Drive and/or Historic Highway 61 needs to be created at some point. One of the things we like to see on these posts are things people can do along the routes since this is a Scenic Byway. The point of it is to have people want to drive it for, not only what the byway provides itself, but the opportunities along the path like the NSSD that aren't directly related to the SNFSB. I am not trying to promote them however I'm trying to make people aware of what they can do and have access to if they chose to take this byway.

I would love to hear why you believe they should be take out and maybe chat about a way to include it in a more professional way if you believe it is not professional.

Rsarran (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I saw the addition to the Page, We do not need this to be listed as a County Highway this is purely meant to explain what the Superior National Forest Scenic Byway is. If you want to create and list something as a highway make a Wiki-post for Forest Highway 11. Forest Highway 11 is the group of highways that make up the SNFSB. Please allow me to work with this page so the public can find out more information about the Scenic Byway and what they can do while driving along it. I do not want this to be done or added as a highway as the Scenic drive once again travels Forest Highway 11 which is the combination of county highway 15, 16, 5, and 110.
 * Rsarran (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * let me comment generally on a few things before we dig into any specifics. First and foremost, you'll need to read WP:COI, our page on dealing with Conflicts of Interest. It's important advice to follow in your situation.


 * The second important point is in WP:NOT, our page on "What Wikipedia Is Not", specifically the section on how "Wikipedia is not a travel guide". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it contains articles written in an "encyclopedic tone". Some good examples of higher-quality articles on scenic byways include River Road National Scenic Byway, Black River National Forest Scenic Byway and Whitefish Bay National Forest Scenic Byway, all of which are rated as Good Articles and underwent a review by a neutral editor before promotion. A good scenic byway article follows the same general formula as a regular highway article, and we can discuss that formula more later.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please tell me what to do with my draft
Please tell me what to do with the draft page. I don't like how you declined my draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.65.34 (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * you need to supply more sources to satisfy the General Notability Guideline. GNG says we need "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Breaking that down:
 * "Significant coverage" would be articles and documents specifically about the roadway; passing coverage in a source doesn't count, which is why just appearing on a map isn't enough;
 * "Reliable sources" are discussed at WP:RS;
 * "Independent of the subject" really means that the sources have to be published by other organizations who aren't in charge of the roadway.
 * If you can include that, then you've satisfied the requirement to demonstrate notability. If you've done that, we can have an article, otherwise we such an article would be deleted.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Otsego county route
What right do you have to delete perfectly accurate articles??!!I want to know?? Bacardi379 (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * county routes are generally not considered notable enough for separate articles on Wikipedia. We follow [WP:GNG, the General Notability Guideline, as a general rule to consider when a topic warrants a separate article. GNG says that a topic needs to be the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". CR 26 and CR 33, as written, do not meet that threshold, so they don't warrant articles.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You say "not generally" Are you not firmiliar with the great western turnpike that was include in county highway 33, I think that makes it a topic that needs coverage. you didn't do much reading in to the articles before you deleted them just because of a vague guideline. Instead of wasting time deleting info try adding info to actually help people


 * You should re add it and start a talk page to see if other users agree. I don't understand how you get to make the decision Bacardi379 (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you're confused about a few things. First, I didn't delete any articles. While it is true that I'm an experienced editor with nearly 12 years of editing experience encompassing over 105,000 edits to the English Wikipedia, I'm not an administrator, so I can't actually delete an article. Rather, I converted the stub articles into redirects to the appropriate list article. If you look through the history, you'll see that every edit made to them has been preserved; that's something our system does for every page. (Even deleted pages have their edit histories retained, but only administrators can see it or restore it.)
 * WP:GNG is not a "vague guideline". The concept of Notability is a cornerstone to how we determine if a subject gets an article or not. If you can produce the requisite "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", then you can make your case that a topic should have an article. Vague assertions that you think something "needs coverage" doesn't justify inclusion. I said "not generally" because there are exceptions. If you look over H-58 (Michigan county highway) or Brockway Mountain Drive, you'd see that those two county-maintained roadways are specifically discussed in many sources including books and news articles. Otherwise, county roads just aren't notable enough for separate articles.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You still sholdnt have converted the stubs and technically the article was deleted if no one else can read it. Most of the state roads around me I have never heard of in books or news, so should they be deleted. Bacardi379 (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You should have started a talk page to see if more qualified users agree with you. You must be a weird little nerd to follow every rule so closely Bacardi379 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are so sure that you are correct, you submit a review on your changes and prove to me that you are correct? Bacardi379 (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * no, technically I did not delete the article, and that distinction matters. You can't ask for a deletion review of something that wasn't deleted, for example. Bacardi, next month will mark my 12th anniversary editing this website. In that time, I've logged over 105,000 edits. My area of expertise is editing articles on roads and highways. (I've had 32 highway articles promoted to Featured Article, and over 200 listed as Good Articles, statuses which require one or more undefended reviewers to critique my work.) I think that I am fairly qualified to know what I'm talking about. I'm sorry that you disagree, but the solution isn't to insult me or call my edits vandalism. Rather, you should find the appropriate sources to show that these two roads warrant articles.
 * As a final note, if you can't reply without adding insults ("weird little nerd"), please do not grace my talk page with your presence again.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No matter how qualified a user is, even if it has 2 million reviews, doesn't make them the expert on articles and I still think that you should have started a discussion to see if qualified Wikipedia users agree with your claim! And you say you didn't delete them but is not there so therefore other people around the world can't read the informative info that one person in Michigan though wasn't "notable" due to vaugue guidelines that don't allow for outlier-like articles Bacardi379 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoever else reads this please feel free to step in and help Bacardi379 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I specialize in NY roads. I can tell you for a fact outside of Otsego 18, nothing in the county will get another article. Mitch 32 (The many fail: the one succeeds.) 05:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That said, if you violate WP:PERSONAL once more, such as calling the aforementioned user a "weird little nerd", you risk being blocked. Mitch 32 (The many fail: the one succeeds.) 05:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * the discussion was started, in two places no less (here, Talk:List of county routes in Otsego County, New York). Under the WP:BOLD guideline, I don't need prior permission to do what I did, just like you didn't need prior permission to create the articles in the first place. Under WP:BRD, you were Bold to make your edits, you were Reverted, and you opened a Discussion about that. The system is working, and will work. We have a group of experienced editors, the U.S. Roads WikiProject. The project has been around for over a decade now, and we've lived through a time when other editors would disparage any road-related articles and nominate them for deletion. Over time, a general rule of thumb developed that state highways are generally ok for articles, but county roads generally are not. The exception to that rule on county roads is when the roadway has "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", or WP:GNG. That's why we have an article on County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan) or County Road 595 (Marquette County, Michigan), but not one on County Road 581 (Marquette County, Michigan).  Imzadi 1979  →   05:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * reping to make sure it goes through.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Mitch32 and explain to me why no other one will be accepted, you tell me I need sources but you don't show sources or proof of your reasoning. And as far as calling a user names, if you look in the edit description you would see what happened as I had typed on the wrong browser, was a total accident that was corrected Bacardi379 (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG says that to demonstrate notability, we need to show that a topic/subject has had "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". WP:42 has a good explanation of what that means. For a road article, that means book chapters/sections (or even whole books), or articles in newspapers or magazines (or the online equivalents) written about specific roads. Mitchazenia's localized expertise means he'd know if those sorts of sources should exist for other county routes in Otsego County.
 * I'm extremely skeptical of your explanation about that comment, and I see you haven't apologized for it. It's too oddly specific to apply to a discussion on YouTube.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Article for deletion
I don't know if this is your first edit or not but we don't usually add the Article for deletion tag to a draft. It is used for articles. I've noticed you've added the tag to 3 draft recently Bacardi379 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not add the notice to any drafts. I've restored the notice to two articles, while they were still in the mainspace before you moved them to draft space. It seems you've found a cute way to attempt to evade AfD.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to evade anything, just saving the articles so they can be improved more and more like Wikipedia intended. Also from my research it shows that none of the United Lands Routes that this company maintains are roads, I'm still looking for more info but it seems to be hiking trails that are numbered. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacardi379 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * please leave the articles at their current locations until the deletion discussion concludes. You can make a request in the nomination for the closing admin to "userfy" the articles as drafts in your personal user space. Your actions to move articles to the draft space and remove the AfD notices from them certainly looks like an attempt to evade the discussion process. As a side note, you might want to find at least one verifiable source for the existence of this supposed entity. While it's true that not all sources are online, if such an organization really did exist and maintain ships and roads/trails, there'd be some online record of it in a news article or even a public record of incorporation. Without even that much, I very much doubt that a closing admin would save these pages as drafts.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Should the I-169 (Texas)/TX 550 pages merge?
I was wondering if the pages of I-169 in Texas and Texas State Route 550 Toll should be merged together, as TX 550 is technically future I-169 and how they share the same alignment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TextClick (talk • contribs) 17:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

List_of_state_trunkline_highways_in_Michigan Comment
It appears that I actually did get overzealous in my edits. I came to later find out that the article was just fine the way it was before I edited it per WP:TITLEABSENTBOLD. However, you did a good job of restructuring the lead, so I think it ended up coming out even better as a result of my interacting with the article even though it was a hasty edit. I've since had to go back and undo several of my edits to other articles based on WP:TITLEABSENTBOLD because I failed to notice that part of the MOS while I was focusing on WP:BOLDAVOID and MOS:BOLDSYN. Anyway, my apologies... Huggums537 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

September
My apologies sir, it just seems you added the tag in retaliation for questioning you, because that article had been there for Months without question. Also have the edits done on United Lands Central Security Agency been of improvement in your view??thanks so much!!!😀 Bacardi379 (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * my opinion remains unchanged, the article should be deleted as a probably hoax. Short of finding verifiable, and concrete, proof that this supposed organization exists, I won't change my opinion on the matter.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Ny 206
In New York just because it is a 3 digit state route doesn't mean it's minor. I don't edit roads outside of my knowledge zone in Michigan? It says 5-8 main routes. Why is it so important to you that you keep removing it? Does it really matter??thanks Bacardi379 (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * as points out at User talk:Mitchazenia, NY 206 is classified by NYSDOT as a minor arterial on the functional classification map for Chenango County. On that basis, it is a minor junction and doesn't need to be listed. The number of digits in the highway designation had nothing to do with my decision to uphold the removal. Now, two editors have reverted you, and a third (Mitchazenia) agrees with the removal, so you'd be wide to drop the matter.  Imzadi 1979   →   04:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I will drop it because I don't care as much as you 3 do lol, I have a life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacardi379 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is your last warning about violating WP:PERSONAL. If you make another comment like that, you will be blocked. Mitch 32 (The many fail: the one succeeds.) 05:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Also on the functional classification maps for New York State, which I see almost every day at work, some sections of the same route are classified differently. For example on the Otsego county map route 28 and route 23 are classified as minor arterial, so should they also be removed?? Also this statement made "so you'd be wide to drop the matter." Is a threatening statement!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacardi379 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * that's not a threat, but rather a piece of advice that when you're on the losing side of a disagreement that's 3–1, the better courses of action are either to concede and move on or to continue polite discussion instead of restoring your contested edits.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, you really need to remember to sign your posts on talk pages, .  Imzadi 1979  →   05:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not thinking about adding any more input to any Road articles but before I move on I want to know why it's ok for ny 28 and ny 23 to be there even though they are minor arterial?? I respect the 3-1 but I'd like to know the reasoning behind it. I hate to cause so much harm, so I will never edit any Road articles any more now lol.User:Bacardi379 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacardi379 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It boils down to this, . You first drew attention to your editing by creating articles on non-notable county roads. Then we saw that you created a set of articles that appear to be hoaxes about a supposed agency that only employs 5 people yet maintains all of these roads/trails and ships and builds other equipment. That amplified the scrutiny of your editing so that now people are watching and reverting questionable edits to other articles. You've been warned about removing AfD tags during active AfD discussions as well. The total of those things, and how you've conducted yourself in talk page comments demonstrates to multiple editors that perhaps you don't have the competence required to be a productive member of Wikipedia. People would be willing to give you a chance, if you made a good-faith effort to cut the crap.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you answer my question on how 23 and 28 are there if they are minor arterial roads like ny 206?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacardi379 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * please sign your posts on talk pages. As for your question, perhaps it's because they are much longer highways overall, even if those segments are classified minor. Perhaps it's also a matter that you're the one seeking to make an addition, so the burden falls on you to justify that addition? Seriously though, stop posting on my talk page without properly signing.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

County highway 34 Otsego county
I can't believe that the county highway 34 article was wrongly deleted it was made for the same reasoning as county highway 18, maybe county highway 18 should be deleted too?? Bacardi379 (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * as noted by when he redirected the topic, the roadway isn't notable. Please stop saying that these articles are being deleted, when they are not. (Your protestations to the contrary, there is a big difference between the two actions.)  Imzadi 1979   →   07:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * you also should probably read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sometime.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Your correct It is redirected but all the content from the article isn't where it's redirected to. So to the average reader it is technically deleted. Part of County highway 34 was a former state highway like part of county highway 18 was but it's "not allowed" to have its own article?? Makes no sense. And please cease lecturing me on things to read, I don't do it to you. Bacardi379 (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's not technically deleted. If it were technically deleted, neither of us could access the edit history of the article to see the previous versions of the article. Now, you might mean it was practically deleted in the sense that if a reader doesn't know how to access that history that he or she couldn't find the information. That being said,, we've tried to remind you that not every subject qualifies for an article. If you'd read the suggested link, you'd get some further insight into how parts of Wikipedia work. Specifically, just because CR 18 has an article doesn't means CR 34 will too. Then again, maybe you should be talking to the editor who redirected it, and not me?  Imzadi 1979  →   07:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Corridor sign picture
Not that it matters at all, but how is a picture that was taken of a sign that our snowmobile club purchased a copyright violation? Bacardi379 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the photo's copyright still belongs to the person who took the picture, regardless of who owns the image. Since you said the snowmobile club purchased the photo, it can be assumed that you did not take the picture yourself.  The person who took the picture is the only one who can say whether or not the image can be used on Wikimedia projects, for that I must direct you to WP:OTRS. –Fredddie™ 23:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * your club may own the physical copy of the sign, but they do not own the copyright in the design of the sign. That copyright would rest with the person or organization who designed it, and not you nor your club.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Highway 401 Exit list edit question
Hi. Do you think it would be appropriate to change the western terminus in the exit list to this?:

Transportfan70 (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * }
 * I wouldn't do it that way, since that carries an implication that Hwy 401 enters/will enter Detroit. That's why we format things they way we do now, using the location of the border/river for both the continuation highway and the bridge crossing. One other issue, no, the American side of the bridge will not be in Detroit, but rather in River Rouge, Michigan. The bridge itself won't intersect I-75, and there will probably be a connector highway between the bridge and I-75 because of the bit of distance involved between the bridge and freeway. Some guesses online are that we could see an I-175 designated, an M-401, or just an unsigned state highway connector. Typically, in such a case, MDOT would actually sign Detroit as the control city.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't think that would go over well, but the separate rows for I-75 and the bridge does make it look like an invitation for editors to format it that way. I guess it would be better to format it as a single row, and ignore the I-75 control cities until the bridge is completed, as I just put them in for the Hwy. 3 column anyways.


 * As for where the bridge will hit I-75, isn't it supposed to be Delray, which is a neighborhood in Detroit? That article even mentions that. Or did the plans change?


 * And where is the online discussion on the possible number for the approach road? Would a state highway be suitable to serve a federal link like a major border crossing? Transportfan70 (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * it is my understanding that the bridge will cross into the US at Zug Island, which is in the city of River Rouge. The connection to I-75 may be in the Delray neighborhood of Detroit, but I-75 is a little distance inland. Just eyeballing it on Google Maps, I-75 is at least 2500 ft west of the branch of the River Rouge that separates Zug Island from Detroit at the closest, and another 6000 ft from the border, so depending on how they route the connector roads, there is at least some length of roadway that will need some sort of separate name or number, at least on paper.


 * There's no official word on any designation, but there's no reason to assume that it would have to have any specific designation type, which is why M-401 could be a fitting number to use in homage to the highway on the opposite side of the border. (The southern freeway bypass of Grand Rapids, while built to Interstate Highway standards was given the M-6 designation, showing that MDOT doesn't feel a compunction to procure Interstate designations.) Michigan doesn't have an I-175, and that number would follow the general south-to-north numbering of I-75's auxiliary highways in the state. Of course, MDOT could decide to use an unsigned connector number for the roadway between customs plaza at the bridge and I-75.  Imzadi 1979  →  13:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 96 scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Interstate 96 article has been scheduled as today's featured article for November 21, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/November 21, 2017. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Canadian links for I-75
I saw you deleted my Canadian connections to I-75 due to a Wikipedia policy for only highways appearing on signage to be shown. But the 401 and other ON highway signs don't usually have US routes shown, but you left them in for those articles. Transportfan70 (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In crafting what we put in the destinations column of the exit list, we typically list only the connections and destinations listed on the main exit signs. Of course an exception is for highways at state lines because the DOTs don't really sign the continuation of a highway across the line. In the case of your edit to I-75,, there was also an additional MOS violation. MOS:RJL says that marker graphics have to go at the beginning of the line, and you had used jcon in the middle of a line in the table cells. Highway 3 was already linked in the notes column of the one junction, and the other seemed too tenuous to list in the other case. As for the northern terminus of I-75, it doesn't connect to a provincial highway in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, a situation that's better described in the prose of the route description than trying to implement in the exit list.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Expressway numbering (Japan)
Hi! I've been including expressway route numbering in the prose of some articles I've been expanding lately. I see that is against the manual of style now, so I'll correct it if I see it in the future. However, I had been doing that because I haven't found a way to include the numbering in the route's infobox. It seems the template isn't set up for expressways to be labeled with the numbers yet. I would be willing to set that up if I was pointed in the direction to do that. Thanks! Mccunicano (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * you can include it in the prose, but you can't use a graphic like that to do so.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Jct additions
Thank you for adding File:Baldwin Beach Express.svg to Jct. I have most of the templates on my watchlist, but I never saw what you edited. Can you show me what you did? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I had to edit the Lua module for Alabama, Module:Road data/strings/USA/AL. What I did was a bit more advanced than I'd recommend most people attempt because I needed to test for the presence of the graphic since we don't have one yet for the FBE roadway.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I will have to take a look at that module, not that I understand Lua. LOL. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Traverse City, Michigan, Official Logo
It appears the updated logo I added was removed and replaced by the logo previously found on the page by you. I have not seen this older logo (blue background with the white waves and three lined figures) used since the 90s. The TraverseCity.com webpage uses the updated logo I added as the official logo. This website may be associated with the tourism bureau, but it is also the official Traverse City website, and I can find no use of the old logo on any current Traverse City website whatsoever. Unless you have some expertise in this area I'm lacking I think the logo needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spenceemmett (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the logo and website (http://www.traversitycity.com) to which you're referring is belongs to Traverse City Tourism, the local convention and visitor's bureau. The official city website (http://traversecitymi.gov) uses the logo I re-uploaded. If we were writing an article about the CVB, then the logo you've uploaded would be appropriate, but since this is an article about the city, it is not.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Untitled comments
How did you make that template on your page? That's really cool! Also Traverse City Represent! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bro1 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I made it by employing some intermediate level template coding I've picked up around here over the last decade. BTW, if you're connected to, you'll need to read our policy about sock puppetry and follow a strict set of rules about having multiple accounts.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not "That One Kid From Michigan", although I think I know who runs it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by That One Kid From Michigan (talk • contribs) 11:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * it's quite suspicious that a statement you'd expect from "The Bro1" ("I am not 'That One Kid From Michigan'...") was made by "That One Kid From Michigan. You might want to want to read our policy about sock puppetry and take care to follow its rules, or else both accounts will be blocked from editing.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Help with Interstates
I need some help shutting down. Dozens of Interstate highway / other page moves. Cards84664 (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

hello
I can help you with your highway project pages, I am michigan based photographer and have a lot of photos of many michigan highways that i'm willing to share, including m-22, m-26, m-55, m-37, m-72, m-41, and a lot more. Im still learning the ropes of editing.

Looking forward to improving Michigan pages, especially adding photos to articles with none already.

Roman — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanKahler (talk • contribs) 02:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * something to keep in mind is the overall layout of a page. Photos are great, and we want and need them, but the most important part of many articles is the text. We need to be careful that we're not overloading the text with too many photos, or that we're sandwiching the text between photos and other elements, like the infobox. Any highway photos should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/), and if an article doesn't have room for extra photos, we can add the commons category template into the "External links" section so that we can link a reader out to that highway's category on Commons.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hello Imzadi1979. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

Road surface marking: Glass beads environmental chemistry
Hello Imzadi1979!

I noticed that you have trimmed the environmental chemistry content regarding glass beads on the Road surface marking page and would like to explain why we (our group) thinks the content should be included.

Our contribution of the glass beads section is the product of a university chemistry class project that focuses on impact of common items on the environment.

We believe that the chemical content is within the scope of the article as glass beads are important components in multiple marking techniques. Thus, a detailed, fundamental chemical explantation of their composition and leaching under environmental conditions has significance in this article.

We made efforts to provide the chemical content in a format that is useful to both general and scientific audiences, but we certainly believe there is room for improvement and welcome your assistance in making the chemical content suitable for Wikipedia. Msingh8 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I disagree, . The amount of content was vastly imbalancing the rest of the article. It was a lot of content about a very specific attribute in an article about a more general topic. It's also very specific to North America, as written, in an article that was written with a more global perspective.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

, thank you for the quick reply. We will reevaluate the content and provide a more concise version in the coming days for your consideration; however, we do feel that the chemical content is valuable and should be included.

We believe the chemical composition of glass beads and degradation and leaching of heavy metals from the beads is a global phenomenon. Kindly, could you elaborate on how our contribution can take on a more global perspective.

Would perhaps a new page dedicated to the environmental chemistry of glass beads that is linked to this article be more appropriate?Msingh8 (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You've added detail that is way too intricate though, . We don't need a detailed analysis of the chemical breakdown to understand that glass beads contain some levels of heavy metals that can leach into the environment. In a different article on glass beads specifically, it wouldn't be out of place to have that level of detail.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

, we concur. We will add the detailed chemical content to a new page and link it to the glass beads section of Road surface marking page. Thank you! Msingh8 (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Latin America Highways task force
So Recently you have reverted my edits on Page Macrolibramiento Sur De Guadalajara i'm trying to find out why. Tren Ligero GDL (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on what other editors have stated, that article duplicated Mexican Federal Highway 15D. We don't need two articles on the same subject.
 * In the future, please be a bit more considerate in your editing regarding contacting others. I've received five emails today because of you, two that you sent through the "Email this user" function, plus one for each edit you've made on my talk page, including the one from the edit where you told me you had sent me an e-mail.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The Page Macrolibramiento Sur De Guadalajara is not Duplicated article of Mexican Federal Highway 15D it has its own Designation in the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation of Mexico Plus I have a *Shield Reference Tren Ligero GDL (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 269
I keep rolling back the edits because there is no official documentation on I-269 beyond SR 385. Sure, AASHTO approved it, but that doesn't mean it has been implemented yet. No editor has provided official documentation from TDOT (i.e. maps, reports, press release) or Media coverage of it. On the ground, they are still signed as SR 385 and until a valid source states otherwise I will continue to reverse edit. While eventually it will be I-269, we are jumping the gun for now; that is my rational. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * the only thing I did recently was to use the source-specific template, AASHTO minutes. I would advise that USRD editors citing the various AASHTO minutes use that template since it will always point to copy of the minutes. In the near term, it points to a PDF on Commons for the years 1967–1988 and the various PDFs/etc on the AASHTO website for 1989 to present, but there is a project in the works to get transcribed copies on Wikisource for all of the minutes backed by PDFs on Commons. Even if that doesn't come to pass, if AASHTO changes their website, or even removes the minutes, we can always update the template to point to archival copies, etc.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * try again because signature doesn't match account name.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't touch that and I noticed it was just reverted, so... anyway, I am going to pause edits so I don't get soft banned. ;) --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Traverse City
That guy is getting mighty annoying. John from Idegon (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

USGDP vs US-GDP
Sorry, I moved all the hyphenated forms back to unhyphenated thinking I had misnamed them in the first place and not noticing you had moved them. I agree with you about being consistent, but the naming of the US indexes is inconsistent with the UK indexes (which have no hyphen). And I anticipate the original outlier, US-NGGDPPC, will soon be removed anyway, so let's keep it all unhyphenated for now.--Father Goose (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t anticipate that index being removed for quite a while. You also forget that we have a  index in use. The various citation templates have moved to hyphenated forms for their canonical spellings to enhance legibility, so I would advise shifting all of the index codes to hyphenated forms.  Imzadi 1979   →   22:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Father Goose (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edits following me on Interstate 84 in Connecticut and others
Hello,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the amazing work you are doing on the interstate articles. I am writing this to address that you are basically countering every edit I make to an interstate article. I thank you for the edits on "I-91" because I am planning a GAN in the future but your edit on "I-84 in Connecticut" that basically undid my edit got me suspicious. I always assume good faith and your history proves it right but is including the town of "Union Connecticut" in the lead that important? The "Union" article makes ONE mention of I-84 and its just a fun fast. Hartford, Waterbury, and Danbury are the two primary stops for Connecticuts use of I-84. The editor who put "Union" in is probably someone who lives there and wants to see their town on wikipedia more often.

Can I please get explanation for you editing right after me and also for the I-84 rollback?

Thank you AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had that article on my watch list for several years already. I trust you read my edit summary, but assuming you didn't, it has the full explanation there. To reiterate, I said "major implies a subjective judgement; edits also forgot terminal punctuation at the end of the sentence". To unpack that, your edit used the word "major", and that word does imply a subjective judgement as to what makes a city major or not. Several years ago, USRD editors recoded infobox road to drop major cities lists. Try it for yourself and see; if USA or XX (set to any valid US total code) is set in the infobox, a major cities list will be suppressed. We also updated WP:USRD/STDS to prohibit stand-alone boxes listing major cities/control cities, which were once prevalent in Interstate Highway articles. Your edit also forgot the terminal punctuation, i.e. the period at the end of the sentence. I noted or alluded to all of that in my edit summary.
 * Now, had you followed a simple rule of thumb with writing and just dropped the fourth city, thus limiting the list of examples to three, and had you also left the period in place, no revert would have been necessary. Three examples are usually plenty, and it's a common construction in writing to find examples limited to just three. However, seeing as Union is listed in the exit list, and it's the location near the state line, even if it isn't as large as the other cities, it's not a bad example to leave in place, bookending Danbury near the other state line.
 * Also, a pro tip for the future, but it's somewhat annoying when editors post on a talk page and then make three subsequent minor edits that have no impact on the meaning/intent of the original message. In doing so, you caused the server to generate a total of four emails to me notifying me of postings to my talk page. Unless you make a mistake in the first posting that changes or obscures the original message, it's best to leave things be or risk annoying people needlessly. (That's also why we have the preview button.)  Imzadi 1979  →   21:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Understood, Thank you for the response. I had no idea about the talk page edit issue. Also, I will try to approach Road articles in a different view now.

If the Mexico Federal Highways request was the wrong place where did you move it?
2605:E000:9143:7000:ADF3:5457:D866:C0E6 (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * every article has a banner on its talk page. So if you look at Mexican Federal Highway 1, there is a banner on Talk:Mexican Federal Highway 1. That banner says that "this article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways", and further down, "this article is supported by the Latin American Highways Task Force." If you click that link for the task force, you'd find that it has its own talk page. (WikiProject Highways also has its own talk page.) If you go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Latin America, you'll find the copied version of your post.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

File:183A Toll Road.svg
While the article maybe 80x80, wiki software has to make a png of 385 × 385 on the image page, this is unnecessary oversized (the image page does NOT display the svg directly. All that is required is to change the page size (e.g as User:Ronhjones/SVGreduce) - as we know that will not affect the image as it's a vector. Adding the template puts it in Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing where there are plenty more svg files. Since we have no bot to do svg, it will take a while to get them done by editor's manual efforts. Ron h jones (Talk) 00:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that SVGs are converted directly to the desired PNG size, without any full-size intermediate step. So, in this case, the 385 × 385 SVG is output as an 70 × 70 PNG (infobox road uses 70px high markers, not 80, sorry) for display; no 385 × 385 PNG is ever generated.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that overall design of the marker in question is in the public domain, and only the small circular logo in the lower left corner is subject to copyright. TxDOT uses that same design for its toll roads in a different color scheme (see, File:Toll Texas 550 new.svg), and the colors in each are chosen from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is in the public domain. Overall, the fair-use content of the graphic in question is quite minimal already.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:County routes in the United States by state
I see you removed the Category:County routes in the United States by state that I added to county highway lists. Can you tell me why? Shouldn't the category and main page for each state be included in this category? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Taking just the Michigan case as an example. List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan is already in Category:County roads in Michigan. That category is in Category:County routes in the United States by state. Based on our categorization policies, that is enough, and the article should not be added to both. From WP:SUBCAT: "Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." That except ("non-diffusing subcategories") does not apply in this case.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Assessment request
Would you mind assessing the page Tsugaru Expressway? It seems to no be appearing on the list of unassessed pages. ThanksMccunicano (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for assessing that, would you mind assessing Shimokita Expressway once more?Mccunicano (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Languages other than our own primary language.
Do you understand just why it is a good idea to bring across from the host country to the secondary country word use/expression when it comes to attempting to understand another people? For people in the US with such a preponderance of practice in English and only English, they get very little opportunity to better understand along the way what is another language and the isolation can prove rather embarrassing. So just maybe, if others know that there is some legitimacy to a language other than English the person who's primary usage is not the host countries' language will take care to understand the subtleties of that language before created based on ignorance what is used to help one people understand another. "Libre, la, corridors, etc. Understanding life is not always imposing an English model on a non-English language and society. We have to break from isolationism. It certainly is not going to help any one in the long term and certainly not going to lend to WP credibility if bad assumptions are endorsed. Maybe the format of that "box" is not suitable to WP's needs to educate? I would rather have an increased sized legend than an inherently biased one.2605:E000:9143:7000:E83F:D86B:C200:95E2 (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is still the English Wikipedia, and we write in English. We don't need Spanish translations of common words like "free". It's useful to provide official names from the other language, but we don't need the translation of the word "the" that's missing from the English name and from the inbox. The presence of a la is not going to right great wrongs.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Michigan renumbering
There was one small one removing ALL duplicates and all highways that overlapped with U.S. Highways.Alexlatham96 (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's what happened:
 * M-10: replaced by US 24 from the Ohio state line to Dearborn, US 112 from Dearborn to Detroit, US 10 from Detroit to Saginaw, and US 23 from Saginaw to Mackinaw City
 * M-11: replaced by US 12 from Indiana to St. Joseph, US 12/US 31 from St. Joseph to Watervliet, and US 31 from Watervliet to Mackinaw City
 * M-12: replaced by US 2
 * M-13: replaced by US 131 from Indiana to Fife Lake
 * M-14: replaced by US 127 from Jackson to Lansing and US 27 from Lansing to Cheboygan
 * M-15: replaced by US 41 (except between Negaunee and Marquette, where M-15 was replaced by an extended M-28 and US 41 followed M-35)
 * M-16: replaced by US 16
 * M-17: replaced by US 12 from Watervliet to Ann Arbor, and by US 112 from Ypsilanti to Detroit; instead extended over M-23 from Ypsilanti to Detroit instead
 * M-19: replaced by US-25 from Detroit to Port Huron, and by M-21 from Port Huron to Goodells, and eliminated north of Goodells; and replaced by M-83 from three miles east of Bad Axe to Port Austin
 * M-20: replaced by US 10 west of Midland and rerouted west via M-24
 * M-23: replaced by US 112 from White Pigeon to Ypsilanti, and by M-17 from Ypsilanti to Detroit
 * M-24: replaced by US 10 east of Midland and M-20 west of Midland; reused on part of M-36 from Pontiac to Lapeer and on a new route from Vassar to Bay City
 * M-25: replaced by M-28 from Skandia to Sault Ste. Marie
 * M-26: extended north, following US 41 from Laurium to Mohawk and replacing M-83 from Mohawk to Gay.
 * M-27: replaced by M-29 from Chesterfield to Port Huron, M-51 from Port Huron to Carsonville, M-83 from Carsonville to Harbor Beach, and by M-29 from Harbor Beach to Port Austin
 * M-28: extended to Sault Ste. Marie over former M-25
 * M-29: replaced by US 27 from Indiana to Lansing; reassigned to former M-27 from Chesterfield to Port Huron, M-31 from Port Huron to Harbor Beach, M-27 from Harbor Beach to Port Austin, a new route from Port Austin to Bayport, M-19 from Bayport to Bad Axe, M-31 from Bad Axe to Unionville, and a new route to Bay City.
 * M-31: replaced by M-29 from Port Huron to Harbor Beach, M-83 from Harbor Beach to Bad Axe, and M-29 from Bad Axe to Unionville, M-84 from Unionville to east of Reese, and M-81 from east of Reese to Saginaw
 * M-34: replaced by US 127 from Ohio to Adrian
 * M-36: truncated; replaced by M-24 from Pontiac to Lapeer
 * M-41: renumbered M-82
 * M-48: extended via US 2 to Garnet, and north replacing M-84 to McLeod's Corner, concurrent with M-28 to Newberry, and replacing M-82 to Four Mile Corner
 * M-58: replaced by US 31 from Indiana to St. Joseph
 * M-65: replaced by US 23 from Ohio to Flint
 * M-69: replaced by US 2 from Wisconsin to Crystal Falls and US 102 from Crystal Falls to Covington
 * M-80: replaced by US 127 from Adrian to M-14
 * M-81: rerouted over M-31 to Saginaw; old route to Bay City transferred to M-29
 * M-82: replaced by M-48 from Newberry to Four Mile Corner; reassigned as a renumbering of M-41
 * M-83: replaced by M-26 from Mohawk to Gay, and reassigned as renumbering of part of M-31 from Harbor Beach to Bad Axe
 * M-84: replaced by M-48 from Garnet to McLeod's Corner; reassigned as a renumbering of part of M-31 from south of Gilford to Unionville

It happened between 1926 and 1929.


 * where are you getting this information? –Fredddie™ 17:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On a Michigan Highways Site; I also found a 1926 and 1929 map on broermapsonline.org.Alexlatham96 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead and stop blowing up his talk page. I trust Imzadi1979's knowledge of Michigan highways more than I trust the roadgeek sites. –Fredddie™ 19:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have copies of maps from 1927 and 1928 as well. Once the text is written as as part of List of state trunkline highways in Michigan, the concept that numbers were reassigned will be covered. In short, we don’t need a list like you cluttered my talk page with as a separate article just to add extra work to Michigan editors. Also, I’ve found errors in your list above, so leave the task to the locals who know what’s going on.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, this exists now: WikiProject U.S. Roads/Michigan/1926 renumbering. –Fredddie™ 22:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * also, try to remember when you're posting on someone's talk page that each edit may generate a separate email to them. Waking up to see 8 emails saying you've edited my talk page was a bit much, especially when you had already created that listing on the page Fredddie linked. To expand upon my reply earlier, the former designations are listed in the table already, and once we get that cleaned up and filled out properly, it will have notes as to what replaced what. The prose will summarize the history of things, including how various trunklines were renumbered to be used as U.S. Highways, and how certain numbers were recycled in other ways, details that your listing above doesn't actually cover, or doesn't cover correctly.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Michigan left
You reverted my change on Talk:Michigan left as not inclusive enough. That returned the page to the category U.S. road transport articles without a state parameter. I've added more, per the states mentioned in the article.-- Auric   talk  02:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's not needed, then why does the category exist?-- Auric   talk  02:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * if this were an article about a specific road or interchange in a specific state, I might agree, but it's about a concept that isn't overly state-specific. That category isn't an error category that has to be empty, as many of the other pages in there aren't going to be assigned to states either.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The edit on Talk:Paul Huff Parkway was made because, for some odd reason, it showed up in the above category. It has not reappeared.-- Auric   talk  02:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's no longer tagged for USRD,, just USST; that's why it no longer appears there.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, you made the change and I was working on the old list.-- Auric   talk  02:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

TFA
This is to let you know that the Interstate 69 in Michigan article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 31, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/March 31, 2018.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * wouldn't it be better to hold this one until we hit the anniversary of its completion? That was fairly significant as I-69 was the last of the Interstates to be completed in Michigan.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please do not revert List of highways in Puerto Rico without ...
Please do not revert List of highways in Puerto Rico without having read AfD:"List of public transport routes numbered 19" --DexterPointy (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the connection to that AfD. It's unlikely that Puerto Rico Highway 19 would be deleted if nominated (per WP:ROADOUTCOMES); if anything attempting to nominate a primary territorial/commonwealth highway article for deletion would only prompt expansion. Length of a highway is no bar to the notability for an article; many shorter highways have substantive articles, and there's no reason to believe this one couldn't as well. Yes, it's currently a sub-stub, but that doesn't mean it has to be.
 * As for the addition of content to List of highways in Puerto Rico, it's quite odd that you'd attempt to merge the prose contents of that article without actually redirecting the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing odd about the not redirecting the article: Rome wasn't build in a day, much less in minutes ;-) I read WP:ROADOUTCOMES, and it clearly says "Most numbered roadways are acceptable if they can be described beyond the route itself". The Puerto Rico Highway 19 article has been there for exactly 10 years, containing nothing "beyond the route itself". So, - What, beyond the route itself, can you tell about PR-19? - Can anyone tell anything beyond the route itself about PR-19 ? DexterPointy (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW: WP:ROADOUTCOMES also clearly says: If the notability claim boils down to "it's notable because it exists", then redirection to a single merged list of that county's numbered roads is more common. DexterPointy (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The connection to that AfD is extremely tangential. It was mentioned in passing. That doesn't equal consensus to merge. Establish that consensus or keep it as is. Smartyllama (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * we're talking about a primary territorial highway, which would fall under the same expectations as a state highway. That latter quotation is about county roads, which are an order of magnitude less important, and an order of magnitude less likely to have articles. I've given the article a basic level of expansion, and were I able to read the expected Spanish-language sources, there'd be more that could be added. As noted, the purported connection to that AfD is quite tangential, and neither that AfD nor my talk page are the place to attempt any mergers.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

rule for archived links of usurped web sites
WP:link rot states:


 * When the original URL has been usurped for the purposes of spam, advertising, or is otherwise unsuitable, setting |deadurl=unfit or |deadurl=usurped suppresses display of the original URL (but |url= is still required).

Please explain why you dispute this. Fabrickator (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * that guidance on that page is related to URLs in citations, not the external links section. In this case, that website has been removed for various reasons related to the suitability of the original source and the author of it, not just because the domain name was usurped.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be making up your own rules. Can you provide references to justify the rules you're applying? Fabrickator (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * the site was removed from footnotes because it is a self-published source. For the rational why it's being removed from the external links, see WP:ELNO, specifically "11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority." The now-dead site was a fansite, and Robert V. Droz is not a "recognized authority". Additionally, just run a search for "Robert V. Droz Florida" to understand why the website is dead and won't be resurrected any time soon.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact a web site has gone offline and may remain offline is not really relevant to the issue at hand. It is relevant that these links have been in wikipedia for quite some time, without being challenged on the basis that it's a fansite, which raises the question as to the validity of this challenge. I suspect that if we were to apply your purported standard across wikipedia, there would be many other links that we would be obliged to remove, to the considerable detriment of wikipedia.  The fact that there are references to the author's work from certain government and other official sites (e.g. http://www.stlucieco.gov/home/showdocument?id=2604) demonstrates that he is recognized as an authority on the subject, at least at some level. Notwithstanding everything else, the basic issue is the reliability of the information provided, and there doesn't seem to be any reasonable basis to doubt this.  Fabrickator (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * actually, the links have been challenged for their suitability as sources. As articles were brought up for review at the GA or higher levels, they were removed and replaced as sources. Many articles were ignored, so links remained in place. Recent events prompted us to reevaluate leaving them in articles.  Imzadi 1979   →   03:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Fort Hamer Bridge
Hi there, I noticed you added the notability tag for the Fort Hamer Bridge (which is correct!). I'm still in the process of writing up the article and its history. It's been a while since fully flushing out whole entire new articles on here but I just want to make sure I'm doing the right steps of adding references to make the article notable. ♫ TheGridExe  ( talk )  13:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Calgary Trail and Gateway Boulevard
Articles that you have been involved in editing&mdash; Calgary Trail and Gateway Boulevard &mdash;have been proposed for merging with Calgary Trail & Gateway Boulevard. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MuzikMachine (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove coding
Why you remove coding and remove additional information for talkk pages? 2606:A000:6604:D700:998A:D7EA:9D5B:D660 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The code put a dark green background behind black text and blue links. That made the text illegible. Additionally, it collapsed all of the text into a single smaller box, cutting off the bottom of it. The default text styling on a talk page is preferable for many reasons. Additionally, you share that talk page with anyone else who may use your same IP without registering an account, so you have very little potential ownership stake in the formatting, or lack thereof.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I resolved at my talk page. 2606:A000:6604:D700:998A:D7EA:9D5B:D660 (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why you still revert edits from me? Put a green background isn't nice? 2606:A000:6604:D700:998A:D7EA:9D5B:D660 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Module:Road data/RJL types
I'm not sure what to do with the "future" type in Module:Road data/RJL types. So basically I changed that module because the Interstate 295 (Delaware–New Jersey) article displays future as one of the types in the jctbtm at the bottom of the exit list.

The problem is that the key just appears as a color box without any indication as to what that color means. The "future" section of I-295 is an existing segment of I-95, so using unbuilt is incorrect. I wanted to add future in Module:Road data/RJL types as a workaround, but you reverted my edit, saying that they aren't supposed to display anything at the bottom of RJL tables, just route list tables. Now I'm confused as to how to fix the color box without a key on the I-295 article, because the color legend worked after I made the edit. epicgenius (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * future isn't supposed to be a valid type for use in junction lists; it is not an approved entry at MOS:RJL. Until I-295 is actually extended, those entries should not be listed. The reason  works is that routelist row also uses that module, and a future highway designation is a valid condition in that template.  Imzadi 1979   →   20:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I also was thinking the I-295 "future" exits weren't supposed to be included until I-295 is officially extended. I'll go hide it now. Looks like you've already done so. epicgenius (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"List of curling clubs in the United States"
Regarding your edit to "List of curling clubs in the United States" on 5 March 2018. The images next to each state and region sure made it easier to find specific things as you scrolled through the page. It gave differentiating visual cues that made the page more user friendly. Seems like they weren't doing anything to detract from the page. Why were they removed?AYK771 (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Grand Nat Curling Logo.jpg is a logo protected by copyright. Under WP:NFCC, we have to have a fair-use rationale (FUR) to use it in an article, and under those rules, we can't have a FUR for a list article like that. Ditto File:Great Lakes Curling Logo.jpg, File:Illinois Curling Logo.jpg, and File:MOPAC 004B.jpg. Leaving them in the table would be a big policy violation.
 * As for the state flags, they're purely decorative. At best, they needed to be reduced in size, and really, they weren't needed at all.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the explanation.AYK771 (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Business routes of Interstate 94
There's a lot of potential for expansion on the Valley City, North Dakota section of Business routes of Interstate 94, especially with the Rainbow Arch Bridge (Valley City, North Dakota). Do you know where I can find historic road maps from before the current designation? Because Historic Aerials Online and other topographical maps aren't giving me anything right now. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * some state DOTs have them scanned and archived online. In the case of Minnesota, for example, a state library website has them, and for Michigan some of them are on the state archives website. There's a thread on the AARoads Forum that has a listing, so you might look there to see if NDDOT maps are on that list.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

California State Route 57
There is no control city (San Dimas) for 57 north between SR 60 and SR 210. I ask that this be put back up. And what is RDL? 104.172.39.100 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So what if there isn’t? Most general readers of our articles wouldn’t know about control cities, so it’s really just a trivial detail. The RJL is the road junction list, aka the exit list. That’s really the only place we bother with control cities, and then only for the cross roads.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Michigan Highways for deletion
A proposal has been made to delete Portal:Michigan Highways, which you have made significant contributions to, as well as all other portals on English Wikipedia. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion if you'd like, which is located at Village pump (proposals). Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 11:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ford Piquette Avenue Plant FAC
The Ford Piquette Avenue Plant article is now an FA candidate and its FA review page is here: Featured article candidates/Ford Piquette Avenue Plant/archive1. Since you are a Michigan native that focuses on roads and have made some corrections to this article in the past, you are an ideal person for giving input in this review. Specifically, I need someone to confirm whether the article meets the FA criteria, but any input that you would be willing to provide will be valuable. Thanks. Jackdude 101 talk cont 14:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how infobox ship is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals
The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,   &mdash; The Transhumanist   10:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

M-35 (Michigan highway) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that M-35 (Michigan highway) has been scheduled as today's featured article for 26 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/May 26, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Template PRint
Tried using PRint at PR-12 but in spite of cspan=11 being correct (11 rows do exist), template is still attempting to produce what appears to be a 12th row. as such, template doesn't appear to be robust enough. Mercy11 (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * you have to close the table. If you add jctbtm at the bottom of the coding for the table, that visual artifact disappears.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

upright=0.669
Hello. Re this, I'm curious why 0.669 is preferable to 0.65 or 0.7, which are 4 pixels narrower and 7 pixels wider, respectively. Is there something magical about the numbers 0.669 and 147.18? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * the portait-orientation photo has a ratio of 0.669, and setting it that way sets the height to a user's individual thumbnail size. I have my preferences set to 300px, so by setting the ratio as I did, it has a 300px height, thus preserving the same visual "weight" as a 300px landscape-orientation photo. Using any other ratio would not have that same effect.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mathematically interesting. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

M-35 review
As requested, here is a review of M-35. –Fredddie™ 00:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * 1) Running for 128 miles (206 km) in a general north–south direction, it connects...→It runs for 128 miles (206 km) in a general north–south direction and connects...
 * 2) Is the HCRHT portion longer than the LMCT section? If so, I would mention it first.
 * 3) Is 'the' in "closest trunkline to the Green Bay" necessary? I know you want to distinguish from the city.
 * 4) Is the claim about being the shortest route between Menominee and Escanaba lead worthy?
 * 5) 'Wooded terrain' is accurate, but it's bland and dry prose.
 * 6) The sentence describing the intended routing has three different verb tenses in use. I'd split it.
 * 7) Membership into the club?
 * 8) I'd pipe a link to M-38 in "another state trunkline"


 * Route description
 * 1) Are the "City of " links necessary? I know why they're there.
 * 2) The HCRHT paragraph seems like a tangent. I think it'd be better at the end of the subsection.
 * 3) Likewise with the US 41 AASHTO paragraph. However, I don't know where the best place for it would be.]
 * 4) Passing the south side of Escanaba?
 * 5) Passing the airport (duplication)
 * 6) Would the grid sentence (starting with "From these two streets...") be better served by a wikilink to House_numbering in the previous sentence?
 * 7) It sounds like the National Highway System ends in Gladstone.


 * History
 * 1) Nothing to talk about between the Native American trail to M-35's designation?
 * 2) "Most maps" is hard to back up, but "several maps" is not hard to back up.
 * 3) "The section not included in CR 510, ..." is not immediately clear what you're talking about. Between Baraga and Big Bay?  Why not just say that?
 * 4) "Since then, sections of the roadway were realigned in Richmond Township south of Palmer to straighten some of the many curves between Palmer and Gwinn on June 2, 1989.[39]"
 * Here the first part of the sentence is fine, it seems general enough, but then you end with a specific date. That doesn't flow at all.

List of unused highways in the United States
In List of unused highways in the United States you've removed many entries with comments like "removing entries that were previously in use". The page lead begins, "An unused highway may reference a highway or highway ramp that was partially or fully constructed but was unused or later closed." It looks to me like you are removing things that were "fully constructed but [...] later closed."  Why should they be removed when they appear to meet the description in the lead? -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * the text in the lead needs work to match the clear scope implied by the title. To open up the scope of the list to include former alignments of highways, sections of roadway abandoned in the process of a realignment, etc, would mean we'd need to list many thousands of examples, many of which would not be notable nor interesting.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am researching Michigan's roadways for a book. I need to know what roads existed between Bear Den Lake and Gaylord in 1989.
I see you have access to digital scans of Michigan listed here and was hoping that I could use them to aid in my research. Specifically the 1989 road maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbautz (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll have anything of use to you; I have a scanned copy of the official MDOT state highway map from 1989 and other surrounding years, but only the state highways and very select county roads are going to be labeled on it.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Portal caps
You want to help figure out what to do with the various US and states' roads portals that have excess caps, or comment on the open RM discussions of similar cases? I don't think "named for their corresponding WikiProjects" is likely to fly as a reason to be capping things that are not proper names and that don't show up in article space, but if you want them synchronized with project names those could be changed, too. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the capitalization of those portals as a problem, unlike yourself. I've already opposed renaming them a third time just now. You'll run into technical issues trying to rename either P:USRD or WP:USRD to downcase the word roads because there are so many subpages of either the portal or the project. I don't think even an admin can move all of the pages at once, requiring someone to manually move each one, breaking the entire portal or project in the interim. Additionally, you'll run into the can of worms that is whether or not we finally drop the unnecessary periods from the "U.S." portions of the names in line with now old and settled guidance from CMOS and our MOS to do so.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The technical issues have been non-problems on the other portals we moved, so I don't think that's a stumbling block. I'm less familiar with the current thinking on U.S. vs US, but we might as well consider that at the same time. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,  &mdash; The Transhumanist   10:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please ping me. Thank you. -TT

Interactive maps
Why put interactive maps in The Wikipedia Interstate Articles if they already have maps of the routes .Elvatomasvato (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The interactive maps are much easier to update and maintain. In time, all of the highway articles will end up switched over to them.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this aplly only to the highways in the U.S.? Elvatomasvato (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Long term, I could see this being applied globally, but the editors rolling this out are only working on the US for now. The American editors were early adopters of KML files, which is a helpful first step for this interactive maps.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Can I help with the iteractive maps? Elvatomasvato (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Route 71 in Iowa listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect U.S. Route 71 in Iowa. Since you had some involvement with the U.S. Route 71 in Iowa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Michigan highways
Sorry, I did not know that an update was going on. Kpgjhpjm ( talk ) 02:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Apapa Oworonshoki Expressway
Hi, Imzadi1979, I was wondering if this is the Apapa Oworonshoki Expressway. If positivie, I could add the image to the article. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have no idea, sorry.  Imzadi 1979  →   14:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

County Route 12 (Benton County, Washington)
I noticed the county route template automatically displayed a standard county route shield for this route (which appears in the major intersections section of this article and this article). This county route isn't signed with the standard county route shield, it is instead signed with this shield. I created an SVG for it (which can be found ) and was wondering if it could be introduced into the template. Howpper (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * that marker isn't legible at the intended 20-pixel size, and it falls under copyright restrictions anyway. The central logo is too detailed to fall under the simple shapes and text exception to copyright, meaning the appropriate road agency within Benton County, Washington, would have a copyright in the design. Additionally, you as a Wikipedian would not have a copyright interest in the design, so you cannot release it under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license as such as action implies that you own the design. In short, the marker needs to be erased off Wikimedia Commons and can't be used on Wikipedia except under fair-use rules.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand. Apologies. Howpper (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Texas I-10 edits.
Why did you revert the Texas I-10 edits? I-10 in Texas is not a freeway for its whole length (there is ranch access here and there in the western part of the state) and it is not untolled (there are toll lanes in Houston)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:D01:5767:78E0:D166:F717:FD8 (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The presence of managed toll lanes as an adjunct to the rest of the freeway does not negate the toll-free nature of the overall road because traffic using I-10 doesn't have to use those specific lanes. The presence of a few ranch accesses does not negate the freeway status of the road.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The presence of managed toll lanes as an adjunct to the rest of the freeway does not negate the toll-free nature of the overall road. Of course it does. You can't claim that there are no tolls, which is what untolled means, when there are. While you are not required to use the toll lanes, they are still there, and they are part of the interstate.


 * The presence of a few ranch accesses does not negate the freeway status of the road. Again, of course it does. One of the qualities of a freeway is that access is controlled. A driveway, such as that provided by ranch access, is not controlled. While such access is not especially common, it is nonetheless there, making any claim otherwise incorrect.


 * As a result of these arguments, I ask you to delete these falsehoods—especially since they do not add much to the lede—and restore the article to the correct version that I provided a while back. Thanks.

2601:243:D01:5767:78E0:D166:F717:FD8 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:D01:5767:7032:11C7:75B2:16E3 (talk)

I-75 in Michigan
Think I've mentioned this before, but it's clear that I-75 used to have an exit with John R. Street in downtown Detroit. That's why there's a 51B and 51C but not a 51A. However, unlike my findings with Greenlawn, I can't seem to pin anything down to there ever being a John R. Street exit. Especially since "John R." is such a generic search term and I-75 has another exit with John R. later on. However, I still think there should be some reference to the former John R. exit. What do you think would help to prove its existence? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * right now you have an educated guess, but we'd need to find a source confirming that guess, like an old map at the right scale to show where such an interchange might have been located. Until then, it would be inappropriate to add anything to the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And that's my question, is where would such a source exist? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I-59
Bra that link is for future. And it’s a extended link, link to show about I-59 updates. Wikipedia let me put link for I 59 future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joravar sohal (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your link doesn't work Bra. If it does for you, it's probably a private link, and needs to be fixed.  Cards84664  (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * do you have a source showing that such an extension has been proposed the department of transportation of one or more states or an agency of the federal government? If not, such an idea has no place in our articles per WP:CRYSTALBALL.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a new link from TinyPic to show everybody a screenshot of new future I-59 extension map. Joravar sohal (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * please don't add that back into the article. Hand-drawn maps based on your speculation or desires are not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. If you continue to edit the article to discuss or show any purported extension of the highway without a reliable source to back it up, it will be removed as vandalism. In addition, your editing privileges could end up revoked. Let this be your very last warning on this matter.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

deletion request
Per this edit

Is it really your intention to move a draft to a title with a misspelling?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * no, that's a typo there, but the intended target does have a redirect that needs deletion.  Imzadi 1979  →   15:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Edward N. Hines
Thanks for the citations. I noticed the page on the front page of reddit on the TIL section with thousands of upvotes, yet the article itself had few citations. Effectively thousands of people were treating an uncited bit of information as a fact. This happens all the time on reddit, especially TIL section. Go there every day, see when they cite Wikipedia, and many times if you go to the article the fact is poorly sourced or not sourced at all. I often follow the links to add CN tags to at least give people some caution.

However, I know nothing about Edward N. Nines, and wasn't interested in spending hours researching him. Too busy with my own articles. Thanks for doing that for me. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Pullman, Michigan
I wonder if I could ask you a favor? I'm betting you have a copy of Romig, pretty much a standard reference on small Michigan settlements? If so, could you verify the above article, as it is its only reference? The reason I'm asking is I pulled what to me at least, appeared to be obviously hoax info from it yesterday, and an IP tried to replace it today. It's been in the article since 2013 (embarrassing), and as things like that go, the hoax content now has a bit of life of its own on the web, due to having been here for so long. If my suspicion is true, and I'm 99.9% sure it is, could you maybe use one of those fancy buttons I don't have and put the article under PC for a month or so to hopefully end this for good? Thank you kind sir. John from Idegon (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I do happen to have a copy of Romig, but I don't have any fancy buttons. The full text for the location from Romig is:
 * "PULLMAN, Allegan County: two brothers named Clement built a sawmill here in Lee Township in 1870; in 1871, the Chicago & Western Michigan (now Pere Marquette) Railroad came through and built a station on land owned by Messrs. Hopper and Bennett; the place because known as Hopppertown and was given a post office of that name on Dec. 8, 1875, with Ranson Shell as its first postmaster; the office was closed on July 19, 1880, but was restored on Feb. 4, 1891, and on July 15, 1901, it was renamed Pullman, evidently for George Pullman (1831-1897), of sleeping car fame [Edward Hutchinson; PO Archives]."
 * I've explicitly cited the book for the text that can be attributed to it, and tagged the rest. I've cleaned up a few minor details as well. I'll keep it on my watchlist, and enlist an admin if needed.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for a filet of blue nosed Marlin. John from Idegon (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Autostrada-it
Thanks.

The default values were inserted, if I recall correctly, because otherwise constructions like  were existing, which creates a concern for the parser as it apparently doesn't know if it's handling mismatched italics or correctly matched bold when the sequence is expanded.

If you can come up with a better 'null' suppression logic for templates like this feel free to share it, as I have other templates that need to have italic or bold wrapped null values handled more effectively.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Route 45 in Michigan scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that I've scheduled U.S. Route 45 in Michigan to appear on the main page as today's featured article on August 30, 2018. If you need to make tweaks to the blurb, it is at Today's featured article/August 30, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * because September 26, 2018, is the 45th anniversary of the decommissioning of U.S. Route 25 in Michigan, October 1, 2018, is the 20th anniversary of the commissioning of M-553 (Michigan highway), and I was planning to nominate both of those for TFA, we might want to let another state have the "highway slot" for August to avoid some Michigan overload.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I-96 Changes
Hello, I'm curious as to why you won't accept my changes to I-96 as you state that it's because of several factors. The US Census Bureau defines the region as Metro Detroit, and Howell is the beginning of important highway changes from I-96 to other important cities in the region via M-59 such as White Lake, Pontiac, etc. Everything I'm saying is factually correct and I wanted to improve this for the readers, as I feel that it's important to indicate that this connection to M-59 allows them to travel to other cities in the northern region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastmode1234 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Brighton was used as the dividing point because that's where the character of the landscape changes over to suburban residential subdivisions. Additionally, the subsections were divided as they are to keep them relatively equal in length, but shifting things around breaks that.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I disagree that the character of the landscape begins to change in Brighton. I'd argue that within the last 5 years, Howell is now where the landscape begins to change, as Fowlerville is still very rural. As someone who travels I-96 quite frequently on the east side of the state, right before exit 133 is where the highway switches from a small 2 lane highway into 3 lanes to handle more traffic. In addition, that exit begins the place where the big Tanger Outlet mall is and every exit after that has many retail shops, restaurants, and housing/suburbs. With all due respect in regards to the equal length of subsections, I don't believe one paragraph of only 4 lines is a huge deal since there just naturally is more critical info on I-96 and how it relates to the Metro Detroit area. I will try to condense info and make it more aesthetically appealing so the subsections still look relatively equal in length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastmode1234 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Stalking?
Stalking much? Per Wisconsin Highway 35, I wasn't aware you could put a non-breaking space inside the page name like that. Cool. Now I'll use that.--Chaswmsday (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, a non-breaking space is still a space as far as link targets are concerned. You'd be amazed what highways outside of my home state have managed to get stuck on my watchlist over the years.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
I noticed that a message you recently left to Dog-Human may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. ''I don’t really see some of Dog-Human’s edits as vandalism. Please make sure you check the revision before you revert the edits.'' INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 08:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * that's good advice, but the user in question isn't a newcomer. That user, according to Sockpuppet investigations/Dog-Boy-Girl is a sockpuppet of a blocked, vandalism-only account. Inserting factually false information, like saying that a highway is signed where it isn't, is still vandalism. If this had been attributable to a misunderstanding, it would be one thing, but it followed a similar pattern to that other account.  Imzadi 1979  →   13:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. Pretty much vandalism at this point. Thanks for telling me that! INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Chicago Road sign
Hi Imzadi, I was just wondering why that image would violate copyright - because of the text? I imagine there's a rule against reproducing the full text on a sign, but I've never encountered that problem before. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned because basically the photo is the sign and nothing else. Someone owns a copyright on the design of the sign, and someone owns a copyright on the text. It's not the same as if this were a photo with the sign as a part of a larger scene, such that the appearance of it would be a de minimis representation of the sign itself.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Interstate-91
Hello,

Thank you for your incredible work. A few months ago you posted issues on why I should not have nominated Interstate 91 for GA. I have resolved those issues and improved the article even more so. Do I have your permission to submit for GA now or does it still need work? AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * my permission is not required for any such nomination. If the issues presented have been resolved, feel free to nominate. If they haven't, a competent reviewer will note them for fixing.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am aware that I do not need your permission, however you were the biggest concern for the GA a few months back. I did not want to repeat the same mistake. I was doing this for your best interest as you are prominent in the Interstate highway articles. Thank you AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Interstate 69 in Michigan scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Interstate 69 in Michigan article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 17, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/October 17, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * M-553 (Michigan highway) on October 1 would be a slightly better selection as that highway's 20th anniversary of commissioning. This year makes only the 26th anniversary of completion or I-69 in Michigan, which isn't as nice of a round number for the date connection. Both bring up another aspect for consideration: if either run on some date in October, that will make the third month in a row that a highway from Michigan ran after U.S. Route 45 in Michigan on August 30 (no date connection) and U.S. Route 25 in Michigan on September 26 (45th anniversary of decommissioning in Michigan).


 * Speaking of... how far in advance should interested parties be nominating things? We have a list of proposed dates at WP:HWY/TFA, but I'm never sure how far out we should be nominating proposals from that list nowadays.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot, but October 17 is the day I'll be traveling to Columbus, Ohio, for WikiConference North America where I'll be presenting. I won't be easily accessible during the time that the article would appear as TFA in case I'm needed to resolve questions.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * These days we tend to schedule almost a month in advance, but if you post at WP:TFARP you can list up to a year before the requested date. I shouldn't worry about not being available on the day, with four coordinators and other interested parties it's difficult to imagine a crisis that would require your intervention. The blurb is already written, and will be checked by several interested parties, so as long as you can make sure the article is in shape, there's no problem.
 * Although there is a shortage overall of FAs to schedule, there are some, such as birds, coins, hurricanes, video games and roads where we have a surplus and are likely to run one every month. Apart from coins, which are inevitably a bit samey, it's only normally the FA writers who express concern! I already have a date-linked candidate for Oct 1, so it's not a straight either/or, and October 1 is a bit close to the previous road on 26 September, that would be two US roads in less than a week. Also there's no better date-linked TFA choice available for 17; my recollection is that you requested I69 ran on this date when it was previously scheduled for a different date. Apart from biographies and obvious major events like hurricanes, terrorist attacks and the like, I don't think most people are too concerned about less traumatic dates like road openings/closing, film or video game releases and the like
 * I hope this helps Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * the date is still problematic because I'll be traveling to WikiConference North America that day. I'll be driving from my home in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan starting after work on October 16, and I'll have limited or no Internet access until I get to Columbus early the next evening. (I'll be staying with family in Northern Michigan the night of the 16th.) As such, I'll basically be away the entire time it appears on the Main Page.
 * It's also problematic because it will be the third road article from the same state in three months; normally in the past there have been efforts to at least attempt to geographically vary the road articles from month to month, either different states or different countries. WP:HWY/TFA has a list of those of those have yet to appear with locations noted. I hope this helps.  Imzadi 1979  →   12:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll schedule something else <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  12:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

US 25 in Michigan
Hi

MOS:US says we must be consistent in articles as to whether we use US or U.S. So as long as the article title is U.S. Route 25 in Michigan, the text in the body should follow suit. This was raised in the main page errors page earlier today. Please could you reinstate the version with U.S. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * the standard abbreviation for that type of highway is "US" followed by the number. This is how it's done nationally in all of the roads articles. jct will only output the undotted abbreviation, so your request to add the dots to the abbreviated form would introduce an inconsistency.
 * The other 47 states will use "U.S. Route" or "U.S. Highway" for the full name, but Michigan has already transitioned over to dropping the dots from the full name, in line with CMOS 16/CMOS 17. See the full name in the infobox, for example.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK fine, but it sounds like something that should be agreed at the project level and applied consistently across the titles and bodies of all US road articles because it really looks odd having U.S. in the title and the hatnotes but immediately switching to US for the opening sentence and body. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your creation of and all of your work on U.S. Route 25 in Michigan; congrats on getting it the featured article of the day. — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack 02:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks! 😀  Imzadi 1979  →   05:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The SPS template
My bad on removing the SPS template. I now see what it actually means; even after initially reading the documentation I thought it seemed as though I was Jeff Kitsko adding information from my own site. Roadsguy (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the guy who added the T-shirt edit to the Michigan left page.
Perhaps ubiquitous wasn't the right word, but I still think it added something interesting. Any suggestions on how to add it better? You said you're from Michigan, do you agree that there's so pride about the "Michigan Left" in our home state? I'm originally from Michigan, went to college in Minnesota (so I guess I should be mad you're a packers fan haha) and now I'm in Arizona (hence the U of A). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garver1UofA (talk • contribs) 03:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * sadly, that page you added only shows the shirt, but no reason why they chose to sell that. Without a different source, all you get is that someone sells a shirt based on the design of the sign, and that's really nothing worth adding, sorry.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Ontario highways
Please note that Ontario King's Highways is not a duplicate navbox with Ontario Controlled Access Highways — the former comprehensively lists the entire provincial highway system regardless of the freeway vs. two-lane highway distinction, while the latter lists freeways in the province regardless of the provincial vs. municipal control distinction. So they're not duplicating each other and do both need to be present on a 400-series highway's article — a 400-series highway must be navbox-linked to all highways in both of those partially overlapping but not identical sets, not just one or the other. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * the combination of the two navboxes makes, honestly, a large mess of the bottom of the articles with a lot of duplication. The two together take up too much visual space, and the practice needs to be reevaluated post haste.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The two navboxes only duplicate each other for the 400-427+QEW set itself, and do not duplicate each other anywhere else — King's lacks important contextual links like the Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley and Lincoln Alexander and Hanlon and Red Hill Parkways, and Controlled Access lacks important contextual links like Highways 2 through 169. There may be other possibilities, such as perhaps a discussion of whether there's a consensus to merge the two navboxes — but as things stand right now, both navboxes are contextually necessary because a 400 series highway has to be placed in both the "provincial highway system" and "controlled access freeway" contexts. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Today's featured article/November 1, 2018
Hi Imzadi. For the date above, Ealdgyth is thinking of scheduling Interstate 75 in Michigan (because of the anniversary). Does that work for you? Is it okay if I add links to Lake Erie, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron in the blurb? - Dank (push to talk) 01:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * that's a good choice, as that date is very significant to the highway. That would mark the 45th anniversary of its statewide completion, and the 61st anniversary of the opening of the Mackinac Bridge. (It also falls a day after the 56th anniversary of opening of the Sault Ste. Marie International Bridge.) Sounds like a good plan all around.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Interstate 75 in Michigan scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Interstate 75 in Michigan has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 1 November 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/November 1, 2018. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a few tweaks to your tweaks, Imzadi ... none of this is stuff that gets my blood going, but I'm not the guy you'll have to argue with ... I've gotten snooty comments when I tried similar things in previous blurbs. If you want to revert, we'll have to run those things by Main Page people before Nov 2. - Dank (push to talk) 22:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The standard for many years was always to skip the abbreviated version of a name in parentheses in a TFA blurb. Also, by shifting the state name out of the bolded link, it allows that to be linked when it isn't linked elsewhere (yet a neighboring state gets linked.)  Imzadi 1979  →   22:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can't ask at WP:ERRORS until the 31st, but questions are allowed at WT:ERRORS, and I think we'll get useful feedback there ... check it out. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We can link Michigan in "Construction on I-75 in Michigan" if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

New Jersey Turnpike
Hello:

I am curious why you removed the capital "E" from exit in this article when in one of the first citations used in it dates from when the turnpike was being constructed and the word "Exit" is capitalized? I note that you have also removed the capital "T" from turnpike. I can see this except the people of New Jersey apparently refer to it as the Turnpike. I am editing this article for an editor intending to submit it for a GA nomination. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * an exit number isn't really a proper name, so the word "exit" shouldn't be capitalized. Other external sources may, but on matters of style, we aren't beholden to them as we are on content. The same goes for generic references to the turnpike without using the full name. The locals may do it, but we're a global encyclopedia, not a New Jersey one.  Imzadi 1979  →   12:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree with you on E/exit since it appears both ways in WP articles ... but fair enough. Thanks for getting back so quickly. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

MI-66
Strictly speaking, Michigan 66 does not fully traverse the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. There are highways that go from the Indiana or State Line (US 23 and US 31 both ending in Mackinac City) and one (US 75) that fully traverses Michigan from the Ohio state line to Sault Ste. Marie. It falls short by the significant distance from Charlevoix to Mackinac City.

Describing MI-66 as the longest north-south highway in Michigan is adequate. "Nearly" is not good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a (talk • contribs) 06:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Nm 162.
To save time when u added the full date tag needed to the topo reference, you could have just added the date instead of adding the tag. Then someone else wouldn't have to. Just sayin. Bacardi379 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't request a "full date"; I requested a full citation and noted that the date of the request is November 2018. That is what full does.
 * That reference is woefully incomplete. Currently it only says "1964 USGS Topo Map". There is not enough information there for someone else to locate the intended source. At a minimum, we need a citation that specifies the correct quadrangle map, the scale (and hopefully the series) in addition to the year and author/publisher. Something like: "" If the map was accessed online, add in the appropriate URL and access date, and if it was accessed through a third party, that should be noted as well using via.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

State Route 74 (New York–Vermont)
This one is on Wehwalt's suggested (emailed only) list of December TFAs. I think he included it because I have it in my Sandbox/1 ... meaning, I wrote the blurb already and didn't want to discard it. But ... wasn't this one of the ones that you said needed more work? - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it needs some work. Nine of its citations are incomplete by current standards, for instance.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll assume this won't run in December (and otherwise I'll let you know). - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Interstate 470 (Ohio–West Virginia) ... better? - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * much better. There's one citation I'd call incomplete, but unless someone has a copy of an obscure magazine from 1976 to fill in the details missing from the Google Books snippet view, we can't hope to change that.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a relief, I'll get to work on the blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)