User talk:Mitchazenia/Archive17

NY 59A
Hey, thanks for expanding the article on the former New York State Route 59A. I have to admit I was ready to give up on it. DanTD (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

NY 107A?
Where exactly was New York State Route 107A supposed to be? Are you sure you're not cofusing it with Nassau County Road 107A, that was the Old NY 107 in Glen Cove? DanTD (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Roads
Mitch

It would be a huge task to gather info for the entire route of anything more than a shortish road, in this respect, and beyond the scope of summary style. Rather than some kind of mandatory requirement, I had in mind that you experts might keep in mind the goal of creating a general knowledge base of what's out there, which areas and routes and parts of states are likely to be worth mining for local information, economic impact, environmental impact, and where the resources are. One of the features of local histories is that they are often not widely published (for obvious reasons); this raises the possibility of quite exciting finds, from time to time, that might be relevant to road articles. I see nothing wrong with exemplifying the impact of a route on a particular community or region, if that information is available; comprehensiveness is unnecessary, I suspect. And just making readers aware of the existence of one or two locally published histories at the bottom of an article would be a real service. You might as a group feel your way around at the start. And does NPR do radio documentaries on local histories? I know that the CBC does. Just a thought. Adding this dimension could lift the status of road articles on WP to something that people out there really go for.

On a wider note, you might consider your role as flag-bearers of the whole concept of road and highway articles on WP (indeed on the Internet), setting standards for WPians in other countries to emulate. I see no such articles for Canadian roads (at least as systematic as US editors have been), nor Australian, British or Irish roads. I really think it's about time WP encouraged the formation of WikiProjects for writing about roads in these countries too; they will look to the cluster of US road WikiProjects for guidance and standards, at least initially. I wonder how one might go about encouraging this? Perhaps the idea needs to be sounded out at country WikiProjects ... what do you think? Tony  (talk)  14:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I was wrong: Pacific_Highway_(Australia) in my region, plus in other countries. But an alarming shortage of WikiProjects in those countries. Tony   (talk)  14:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: NY 59A and NY 107A
My apologies. If you have more information, I'm not going to stop you from adding it. Maybe you should've told me before, and I would've considered transferring it to your sandbox instead. As for NY 107A, where near Merrick Road was thins? I've never seen it on a map or in real life before. DanTD (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Reviews
Sure thing. I am working my way through the Tamil article at the bottom of the FAC list but then I can get to them. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can review wherever needed. It is always a huge benefit to review things at peer review before they get to FAC, so if you have any road articles you are getting ready for FAC and you want me to review them, I'd prefer to review them before you actually post them to FAC.  If that makes sense... -- Laser brain   (talk)  04:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have left comments at the NY 22 and 373 FACs, and left a pre-FAC review at Talk:New York State Route 3 so far. -- Laser brain  (talk)  05:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Road copyedits
Sorry, I'm temporarily burned out on road edits, and I'd rather not sign on for a whole new batch. If you can narrow the list down to the most important one, I'll try to take a look. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:FAT
You have new comments here. Cheers, -- Lord   ₪   Sunday   22:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

2006 Pacific Hurricane Season
Your new rewright of the 2006 Pacific Hurricane Season has been undone, is that ok with you because i was also adding information on the season(most recently on Ioke)and i am not okay with it?--72.193.254.254 (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mitchazenia, Hurricanehink and I discussed the matter, and decided that we would revert the recent edits to let Hurricanehink take over. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NYSR tagging
You are removing the USRD tag from articles which are within the scope of USRD. Please stop. --NE2 17:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

NYSR and USRD
So let me say that I have no problem with what's going on, and wish you the best of luck. And who knows, maybe I'll come help out, too. I do have a concern though with the scope of the project and have one question about it. Interstates in New York...jointly covered by USRD and NYSR? Your recent edits to the talk page of the Bruckner Expressway suggest that that is the case. If it is, awesome. Just a clarification is all. I figured it's better than bringing it up on talk page where it could spiral out of control, you know? Thanks man, -- M PD T / C 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

wikiproject
I don't agree that you should leave USRD. However, I have been having a problem with someone who keeps telling me that I am doing everything wrong there. So I don't know what to do. --  Carpet master 101  22:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the shields, I'll still make them.Actually If I remember correctly, NE2 reverted some of my edits a few months back for no reason. So I thing I might leave USRD altogether to get away from the dumb fighting over there. --  Carpet master 101  22:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I need the list of the Washington county Routes so I can make them. --  Carpet master 101  22:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Heyo!
I left some long comments over at WT:USRD. I support the fork of WP:NYSR. I'd like to see this lead to a confederate system of USRD unlike the federal system that developed. I think two things:

1) It's good to have standardized guidelines via USRD, and that's it.  Any discussion that affects another state WP should be addressed where the discussion is happening, linked via USRD.

2) The USRD tag should be abolished for any state WP that is active and should be abolished as other states move into activity.  Even if that level of activity drops again, it shouldn't be switched back to USRD.

Let me know your thoughts. I would reactivate myself in WP:PASH for this cause. Cheers! --Son (talk)

Don't despair
My only concerns is for you to find sources to go along with the maps, or something that interprets the maps. Are there any written travel guides? Are there any local histories? I'm sure a government agency may have publications on it. The maps can be used, but must be in conjunction with something so an individual does not have to interpret the map to understand. I had a problem interpreting the maps to find the evidence. Does this make sense? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. I didn't have a chance to review many road FAs before because I was on hiatus during the summer from reviewing. However, I would have opposed them also. Are there no travel guides that deal with these kinds of things? A long time ago, when I was a sophmore in college, my Environmental Lit teacher would ride across the US writing travel narratives and guides. I got the impression that this was a big field. Perhaps check with a tourism agency or local governments to find out any information? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be able to get the information faster than what you belief. Try looking up the county governments that the road travels through and email them for information. Also, the OR part is only about having people look at maps for the information. If the information is text, then it shouldn't be a problem. However, I had a problem following some of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, that may be a alittle excessive. Why not order travel guides or find any releases for the areas just mentioned in the article? I'm also sure that local papers may talk about expansions of roads, and in doing so, discuss some of the history. You only need to fill in... what? 10 areas on the page with cites? Its not really a big deal. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and question
Thanks for promoting the Guitar Hero FTC a day early (I doubt another day would have mattered, but hey, great!) Question: can I change the image that you selected for the topic? I was planning on using the free image Image:Guitar-hero-controller.jpg rotated and reduced which would make it obvious it was a Guitar Hero guitar controller. --M ASEM 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FT promotions
Hey, Mitchazenia. I appreciate your initiative in promoting an FT, but I'm have to let you know that you missed a bunch of steps in the promotion process, like adding the discussion to the log, adding it to the random topic generator, informing Goings-on and FTC about the promotion, and creating the talk page for the topic. The promotion procedure has become cumbersome, but for now it all needs to be done. Thanks for all your work on FTs. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Haste makes .....
Hi there, I'm not sure where we stand on the road reviews since you are clearly in a hurry to get them through FAC. That is not a great idea for a number of reasons—the biggest reason is that it is a strain on reviewers to have to bring articles up to standard when it should have been done before FAC. As I stated a few days ago, I prefer to see articles at peer review before they pop up at FAC. I'm going to cease reviewing the other road articles because I don't like to work like this. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 2, Issue 9 - September 2008 == → Apologies for the late delivery, there has been extended network problems on the bot's server over the last few days.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 09:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NY 321, Foward Road, NY 174, NY 175, NY 173, NY 92, NY 41A, NY 359 pics
I finally added some road pics. Of NY 174 I had too many that I liked, so I added four...feel free to choose your favorite(s) and remove others. NY 175 I added a couple; I'd still like to get one of the Syracuse end...South Ave or Kennedy St...not the best neighborhood, and so will be an interesting contrast. NY 173 I added one; I still want to get one at the western end somewhere (Camillus or Warners). NY 41A I added one at north end; it has some gorgeous views along Skaneateles Lake...I'll try to get out there during foliage season and get something good. NY 359 I added two. NY 321, Foward Road and NY 92 are still on my to do list. Lvklock (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #20
The August issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected picture
Great work so far, lookin pretty good. Just a note to take Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected picture/34 as an example, it is usually a thing at WP:FPOC that the image credit should be linked (preferably wikilinked, but if it is an offsite source than a hyperlink is okay too) and also in the description text the relevant associated article should be wikilinked and bolded. I went through the first few making minor corrections. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Yamamoto Experience
Got an email at OTRS from the owner of The Yamamoto Experience regarding some images. Have these been uploaded yet? Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 20:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on NY 22 FA!
Mitch,

Was reading the Signpost and learned that way of the gold star on New York State Route 22. I certainly will take credit for the photos and route description, but you took charge and got the recognition. Excellent job! I am happy to work with you. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

NYSR stuff
I looked at the discussions at WT:USRD and don't know what's going on. It seems like a misunderstanding. Can we talk over IRC sometime the next week? I'm actually home so I can be on much more. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:USRD help
Mitchazenia, I received this message from you a little under a year ago, I dont usually check my user page, but im definitely interested in helping you guys out. Get back to me and this time ill be sure to get my messages. Thanks.

Recently seeing your work on NYC streets, I and the people at WP:USRD are in need of some full-time road editors. Notify me if you wish to join and I can notify the project.Mitch32contribs 20:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter, Issue 6 (FINAL ISSUE)

 * —Rschen7754bot (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
I'll probably be at the starting point at TOPP downtown, because the Columbia people will probably handle Columbia best. I'll update you if plans change. Hope to see you there, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT


 * Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
 * Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:


 * Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project


 * 349 W. 12th St. #3
 * Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
 * By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:


 * Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,
 * Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan rescheduled for October 4
Wikis Take Manhattan has been rescheduled for next Saturday, October 4, due to the rain predicted for this weekend.. I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

State highways in Chautauqua County, New York
I didn't know your idea was popular. I just copied the format from Essex County and subsituted Chautauqua County information into it. :)

I will try to expand descriptions and add decomissioned routes within the next couple days. Skudrafan1 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For supporting me in my RfA, which just passed with a final total of 154/3/2, and for helping me since I was a newbie to get to this point. Without your tireless efforts putting up with me, I would not be where I am, with a tiny mop on the right-top corner of my talk page. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect 1975 Pacific norrthwest hurricane
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 1975 Pacific norrthwest hurricane, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 1975 Pacific norrthwest hurricane is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 1975 Pacific norrthwest hurricane, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC removed
Mitachazenia, please don't renom a FAC right after it was archived; it's not fair to reviewers or to other FAC nominators. Your options are to contact previous commentors and opposers, or to invite peer review volunteers and previous opposers to a peer review. Concern is already being expressed at WT:FAC about how thinly FAC reviewers are being stretched. I'm sorry I took so long in getting back to you, but I've had a very busy morning. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge FAC
Hi Mitch. I have tried to answer your concerns at this article's FAC. Jappalang (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mitch, I have sourced those statements. Would that be enough to address your concerns and secure your support?  Jappalang (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for New York State Route 194

 * I followed up in Talk:New York State Route 194 about alternative DYK wording possible. Nice that you created the article, any which way. doncram (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, "removed" is neutral, hence better in my view. doncram (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Manhattan 2 and subway stations
If the articles need pictures, sure! I'm kind of busy finalizing my end of the list now, but if you could add in your subway requests before 10 PM tonight (when we're gonna print the packets), that would be great. Thanks for your help!--Pharos (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm coming, at least to the party at the end. I think at this point it's too late to register, but I'll see if I can get some of the things in the upper east 70s and thereabouts. Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, many thanks on the contributions! --Son (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 2, Issue 10 - October 2008 == → Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 11:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #21
The Septeber issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

New York State Route 86, Lake Flower pic
OK, I give up-- what exactly do you have against the Lake Flower picture in the New York State Route 86 article? Too pretty for you? -- Mwanner | Talk 11:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

GAN
I finished Pennsylvania Route 666's review. One very minor issue and it passes. Cheers! &mdash; the _ ed  17  &mdash; 21:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rschen/Awadewit discussion

 * If I may jump in ... (not knowing where to post this) there *have* been some legitimate concerns raised about USRD articles that have been sent to FAC that I would not disagree with.


 * However, there have also been some illegitimate concerns that have been raised which are not reasonably actionable. By stuff that is not "reasonably actionable," I mean stuff that would not be practical from our viewpoint - two examples that I cite are a) not being able to use maps because they are "primary sources" and b) declaring an entire article not notable and petitioning for its merger or deletion with another article.


 * Because of these "illegitimate concerns", I believe that there is a current rift in between USRD and FAC. I believe that some of the current FAC reviewers (but not all) are currently biased in terms of how they deal with roads articles and other articles that they do not believe are of high importance. This opinion is shared by many members of USRD and is not just a Mitch and JC thing. I wouldn't go so far to say that this is on a personal basis, but I do not believe that many FAC reviewers are being neutral when they are reviewing roads articles; I believe that some are just looking for reasons to object to the promotion of them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am attempting to clarify here what Mitch said directly about me, which is separate from differences you all may have with FAC reviewers. That should probably be taken to WT:FAC. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I did both of these things, let me respond. 1) WP:PSTS lists maps as a primary source; primary resources cannot be the basis of large sections of an article. If you disagree, please work to redefine the policy. 2) Any article can be suggested for a merger. Nothing "protects" an FA candidate from this. If a merger is the best option for an article, any editor has the duty and the right to make that suggestion at any time. I am interested in promoting quality articles, be they about roads or any other topic - this is not a bias - it is essential in a good FAC reviewer. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Third-party maps (and potentially DOT maps) are clearly not a primary source, no matter what WP:PSTS says. I do believe that the guideline does need to be changed, because it is currently misleading. In regards to merging, I believe that if there is clearly enough information to write a good GA or A-class article, it should not be merged. Clearly there was enough material for a good article, so clearly, suggesting that it be merged was disrespectful and a poorly thought-out decision. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also pointing out the tag at the top of the page: policy - "a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors." Normally linking to Use common sense. Maps are a secondary source - thus it follows common sense to allow their usage in articles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As your response points out, these are debatable matters (and the policy is far from clear), which means that they are legitimate concerns. That you don't agree with my point of view is not the issue. The point is that we should be able to calmly discuss these issues without ad hominen attacks. Awadewit (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "I think you should have never written the article in the first place." That's basically what you're saying when you suggest that a FAC be merged. Do you see how disrespectful that is? It's not actionable either. (following the suggested action wouldn't get the article promoted either because... well there is no article to promote to FA.) Many people do not believe that most roads should be on Wikipedia, but they haven't decided to agitate against it. At least in recent times. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merger does not suggest that all - it means the content is useful but shouldn't be presented in the form of an autonomous article. I specifically suggested a merger because I didn't want the content to be lost. I think I even stated this explicitly on the article talk page. Awadewit (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But if it were to be merged somewhere, that would make that article way too long if that article were ever to be expanded to FA standards. Another problem to cite is that Ling.nut has repeatedly agitated against various articles being promoted to FA without being specific. He has been called out for this several times at FAC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Then you work on summary style. None of these problems are insurmountable. Talk to Ling.Nut if you want answer's about his reviewing style. Awadewit (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But summary style would result in a) loss of information or b) splitting it into separate articles. a) goes against what you said above, and b) brings us right back to where we are now. FYI - Wikipedia talk:No original research --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Summary style does lose information, but that is to the benefit of the reader. We don't include every iota of information in our articles - that tires readers. We need to write articles that interest readers and convey information to them in the best possible way. Our articles are for the public and should be designed in the most accessible way possible. Awadewit (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this discussion should be moved?


 * I don't get it. So you're saying that you didn't want the content to be lost, but then you're now saying that you advocate summary style? Perhaps you can clarify. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can do both. They are not mutually exclusive. Awadewit (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can be specific as to the information that you believe shouldn't be on the US 40 ALT article? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Julian suggested merging three states of the National Road into one article (MD, PA, and IN, maybe?) - I would have to see what all of those articles looked like before making any sort of judgment. Could you list all of the articles and I'll start working on it. Awadewit (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well since US 40 ALT was promoted, it's a moot point. Perhaps I'll give you another example, one that I'm more familiar with - California State Route 78. Do you believe that there is "indiscriminate information" in this article? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to look at all of the sources in that article as that would be what would determine for me whether there is enough sourced information to sustain an independent article. I'm too tired to do that now, though. Tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)