Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of numbered highways in Maryland/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:52, 21 July 2008.

List of numbered highways in Maryland
This list covers Interstate highways and U.S. highways in Maryland. It lists each of the highways, with a description of each, and various data on each. - Algorerhythms (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Could the borders in the lead image be darker? Because it's hard to see as a thumbnail. Gary King ( talk ) 04:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it with a different, hopefully better, image. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments Algorerhythms (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lede is nicely written
 * The columns need resizing. There's too much white space, and the description column, which is full of text should be at least as wide as the terminus columns, and then make the terminus columns shorter.
 * Changed.
 * "Former route" shouldn't be in the length column. Move it to the description column instead
 * In that case, should I just put zero for their length, as they currently have no length? -
 * Is it possible to find out what the length was when the road was closed? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I added notes for each of them to point out that the lengths are of the last signed portion. - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 *  Oppose Support Do not put fixed width, especially in pixels. Let our browsers fix the width that's optimal for us.-- Crzycheetah 19:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. But if a list is made up of many tables, all of which contain the same columns, would you not prefer to see the tables look the same rather than all different depending on which table has the longest entry in each column being the overriding factor?  Would you compromise to % rather than absolute px? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, %'s are fine. Pixels are not fine because many people use different screen resolutions and fixed in pixels give large tables to some and small tables to others.-- Crzycheetah 20:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome, so in future I'll also incorporate that concept into my advice. So, Algorerhythms, go for % rather than px and you may overturn this oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Also, I'd like to see fixed width to all columns rather than 5 out of 7.-- Crzycheetah 20:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the table so that columns are specified by percent rather than by pixels (that's what I get for not reading WP:TABLE the whole way through to find out how to specify by percent...). The widths may need to be adjusted, though. - Algorerhythms (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your 's have width in pixels as well.-- Crzycheetah 21:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to fix those. Looking through existing featured lists, I mainly find galleries that are either specified by pixels (such as in List of Interstate Highways in Texas) or not specified by pixels, but with images that appear very small except on low screen resolution (such as in List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. If you can find an example of a gallery that doesn't specify pixel size, but does work well, please point it out. - Algorerhythms (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am actually surprised that TRM above did not mention this section in MoS; he usually mentions it. I striked my oppose and as soon as you change 225px → 224px, I'll support because it will be satisfactory in my browser at 224px. I know I am being a little selfish here.-- Crzycheetah 00:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's now 224. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There are two more nitpicks: no need for the See also section because that link is listed in the template below AND the second footnote should have a period in the end and a source.-- Crzycheetah 03:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as it meets all criteria. I've copyedited the lead a bit. (One comment: State highways received numerical names around 1927 - if this means "beginning in 1927", use that. If not, can you clarify?) I would also suggest de-linking some of the place names that are very commonly used. There's no need to link Pennsylvania so often, for example. Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've de-linked some commonly-occuring place-names such as Baltimore and Pennsylvania. Good catch on the passive voice. I tend to write in passive voice without thinking about it. - Algorerhythms (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.