User talk:Washuotaku/Archive 2011

USRD assessment
I don't know if anyone's ever mentioned it to you, but you can assess your own articles. It's not written down anywhere on WP:USRD/A, but there's a gentlemen's agreement among the editors that you can assess anything up to a C-class article yourself. If you're seeking a B-class assessment, I would seek an opinion beforehand. Of course, for anything higher than that, please seek the appropriate forum. –Fredddie™ 05:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, did not know that. I have operated kind of secular to the whole WikiProject U.S. Roads team, even though I have contributed for quite a while now on roads in and around North Carolina.  Guess I can start grading myself from here on now, using the guides on USRD.  Thanks. --WashuOtaku (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, we don't bite. :D  If you ever have questions about anything, drop us a line at WT:USRD, or if you want a faster answer, on IRC –Fredddie™ 06:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

US 15/501
If you have time in the near future, could you pop into IRC? We have been discussing long-distance concurrencies, and US 15/501 was mentioned as a candidate to be split apart. –Fredddie™ 01:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary&#32;for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I typically do, just didn't bother with that while organizing the categories because it would simply take me longer. Also, I figured it was kind of obvious that a category change is not vandalism. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that your edits weren't vandalism, but yeah, edit summaries are always helpful, even for mundane stuff. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Triangle Expressway
I may have been wrong to put anything about the Southern Wake Expressway in that article, which used to be called TriEx. One of the reporters called the Southern Wake Expressway a part of TriEx, but I'm thinking that's wrong. They don't seem to be using the term "TriEx" anymore for the road now udner construction, though, so I guess the move was correct. But I'm thinking it may be okay to create a Southern Wake Expressway article, and if I do, all that information should be there. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 23:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't create a new article solely on the Southern Wake Expressway, it's just a continuation of the Triangle Expressway, also noted in the future section as the "Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension" (listed on NCDOT's website). Remember, there are four sections of the Raleigh Beltway (as listed on I-540/NC 540 page, but only the Triangle Expressway covers half of it (including the future southern and eastern part).  You can add-on the existing article about it if you like, but please include all references.  --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. When I started the article, "TriEx" referred specifically to the Triangle Parkway and Western Wake Expressway. Since someone has moved the article to a new title, I suppose putting the Southern Wake Expressway information in the same article would work. And I'm pretty sure I put all the references in there. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 16:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe some of it was re-written by me, though some references did remain that was relevant. The project does change after a while, but I would keep it within how NCDOT describes it and please note that the final route hasn't been established yet thanks to delays.  Also note that some of the same stuff is already written on the article specifically to NC 540, so I would dwell more on the Toll aspect of it as oppose to reiterating everything.  Please don't get upset if I come back in later and tidy it up.  :p  --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * NC 540 is probably the best place, because I've only heard the Southern Wake Expressway described as part of TriEx one time. I'm not sure that wasn't a mistake.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 16:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Governor James G. Martin Freeway
Governor James G. Martin Freeway redirects to Interstate 485, so regardless how much of the freeway bears the name, it needs to be mentioned in the lead of the article. You could have clarified how much of the freeway has the name rather than undoing my edit, which also removed an improved/corrected hatnote as well as all mention of the name.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the hatnote. But I don't agree with the change, I don't even know why Gov. Martin had its own article page anyway, very few people go by it.  But I stand with my statement that it doesn't need to be listed at the top unless you want to go across the board on all interstates in NC, and even then it would look heavy and ridiculous because there are several official names for each interstate in NC.  It is noted in Alt Names section in detail, it probably should be moved up to Route Description. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand you want to make sure people know one section of I-485 is named after Gov. Martin; but as mention before it has three other official names and is already noted in article. Very few people use the Gov. Martin Freeway to describe I-485 locally.  Also, if you insist that I-485 list on top all it's official names; then we would need to do that across the board with all other Interstates in North Carolina.  I-40 (for example) has around 15-20 official names along its route; its easier to have a section devoted on that than stating all on top. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally don't care, but a newbie created Governor James G.Martin Fwy earlier, which I moved to Governor James G. Martin Freeway, and corrected. The previous article stated that the name was along I-85 between a city in NC and one in SC. So I moved the misspelled name (note the lack of a space between the middle initial and the surname and the abbreviation for "freeway") to the correct spelling and then converted it to a redirect. When you have a redirect, you really need to list that name in the article in boldface per the "principle of least astonishment". In other words, if someone lands at I-485's article through the Martin redirect, they really should know exactly why they landed there. And yes, each article should list the official names for the highway some place, preferably with the names that are redirects up in the lead.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)