Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indiana State Roads/Archive 1

message: Yikes! I thought we were leaning away from the use of colors in tables (see Indiana State Road 1), due to accessibility issues? —Rob (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  Apparently not, since the junction table colors are very common in WP:NYSR and WP:PASH. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors? 

message: Please consider expanding Lincoln Heritage Trail. I started the article, but I couldn't find much information for the article. --Eastmain 08:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lincoln Heritage Trail]] 

message: All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master sonT - C 16:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates

message: Why should attractions not be listed?  It seems like useful information for an encyclopedic description of a route. Omnedon 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree.  Was there discussion on removing attractions from these articles?  (Don't see anything about it in the talk section.) Huwmanbeing 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Attractions tend to be an unencyclopedic list of locations along the route. If attractions are notable enough for inclusion, they're better off being included in the route description instead. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are actually talking about something that might better be described as a "point of interest".  The problem I see here, however, is that I added such an item (a significant waterfall) to a route's article, as was clearly requested for this WikiProject at the time that I did it; then someone removed that section from the WikiProject page with no discussion.  Omnedon 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attractions 

message: In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:
# Each project needs to remain aware of developments at WT:USRD and subpages to ensure that each project is aware of decisions / discussions that affect that project. It is impossible to notify every single project about every single discussion that may affect it. Therefore, it is the state highway wikiproject's responsiblity to monitor discussions.
# If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
# USRD, in most to nearly all cases, will not interfere with a properly functioning state highway wikiproject. All projects currently existing are "properly functioning" for the purposes mentioned here. All task forces currently existing are not "properly functioning" (that is why they are task forces). Departments of USRD (for example, MTF, shields, assessment, INNA) may have specific requirements for the state highway wikiprojects, but complaints regarding those need to be taken up with those departments.
# However, this is a reminder that USRD standards need to be followed by the state highway wikiprojects, regardless of the age of the wikiproject.
Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder from USRD