Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Interstate Highways/Archive 4

message: See WT:USRD#Infoboxes for Interstate spurs and loops. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes for Interstate spurs and loops 

message: Ok nothing big.  But for interstates like 785, 840, 14 etc, would there be a way to set the infobox to pull a "Future" shield instead of a regular interstate shield?  Or, instead of playing around with that, what if the Future shields were called "Interstate 785 (FU)" for example and used the shield_ext parameter?  Might that work?  I'd just like to be able to use these in infoboxes if the opportunity is there (like Interstate 840).  --MPD T / C 00:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can probably rig up a parser function when Future is used in the |type= parameter, so that it will call the future shields.  And the NC for those shields should be Image:I-X (Future).  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 16:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  I'm sure you see them now, but for those who don't know, they're currently "Future X.svg".  I'll re-upload those under the "I-X (Future).svg" title later and do all that fun stuff.  --MPD T / C 17:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it works with the Interstate-specific infobox, but with , you can just call an alternate image with the marker_image parameter.  See Garden State Parkway for an example. -- NORTH talk 22:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes...yet another question 

message: Can someone explain why there is a cleanup tag on Interstate 215 (Nevada) for the exit list?  The only thing it appears to be missing is the county heading.  But as is noted at the top of the table, the road in within a single county.  Secondly, this is primarily a county road and not an interstate, only 20% of the total length is an interstate road, the rest of it is a county road. Vegaswikian 19:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mileposts must be added, and county must be included.  The municipalities cannot have any colours.  Lots to do. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read it.  The county is listed as optional if is in one county.  There is nothing about not using colors in the list of required headings.  Vegaswikian 19:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The mileage and exit columns are in the wrong order, the destinations column is split in half, and every table cell is center aligned.  The lack of milepost themselves is not a reason to tag a list for cleanup provided  is present, and, per consensus at WP:ELG, the note that all exits are in one county is sufficient. Would I include the county in the table? Yes, but it's not mandatory. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The order is as defined in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28exit_lists%29#Required_columns and there is nothing written about center aligning.  Does the template need to point to more guidelines where this information is identified? Vegaswikian 19:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The order in that section is incorrect; per  and the examples shown on the page, mileage precedes the exit number. As for the center alignment, this is the first table I've ever seen that uses it. Also note that none of the examples on the page use center alignment. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the order is incorrect, then the guideline should be modified.  If not centering text or not using colors is not prohibited in the guidelines, then it is acceptable.  Examples just help to identify how to implement the guidelines, they can not be the guideline without some explanation.  I think the guidelines need some expansion for these points.  Vegaswikian 20:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather, you should bring this issue up at WT:ELG to see if others share your view. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interstate 215 (Nevada) 

message: Figured all the editing that remains is nitpicking. :-) Feel free to provide comments (bigger history section? more maps? I've thought both of these at points.) on the talk page. —Rob (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it failed. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Interstate 290 (Illinois)]] a GA nominee 

message: Details in the Jane Addams Memorial Tollway article... I fixed refs in the article, but I don't like having to play version catch-up with AWB every time I use it... which is "not often". Does someone with a current version of AWB want to do quite a bit of renaming? —Rob (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait until we know whether the new name has become common. --NE2 09:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fair. My bet is that it will take just like the East-West Tollway became the Ronald Reagan Memorial Tollway, but we'll give it a couple months. —Rob (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still not sure on commonality, but the tollway seems determined to call it that regardless of what else happens:  —Rob (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Missed this annoucement, but did hear about I-355 South extension in Will County will be named in November 2007. --User:Beatgr 020:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it'll be called the Veterans Memorial Tollway starting November 11. I'll wait to change it 'til then. —Rob (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northwest Tollway renamed to Jane Addams Memorial Tollway 

message: Recently, I've noticed changes made to a couple of articles' infobox junction lists. As examples:
* In I-85, I-20 and I-75 were combined to imply the were multiplexed when they intersect in Atlanta. At one point, the I-40 interchange was omitted in favor of US 70! (Diff: )
* In I-35, major interstate I-90 was replaced with minor interstate I-94, because the I-94 interchanges are in Minneapolis and St. Paul, whereas I-90 is in Albert Lea. (Diffs:  and )
The problem is, this completely goes against the description of the infobox here, which states "Only major junctions go into the Interstate routebox." Not junctions in major cities, but major junctions. I don't see any discussion to indicate this is being reconsidered, and as I said, the project page says to list junctions. I say keep it that way. Is there anybody who favors turning the junction list in the infobox into a list of arbirtrarily-selected junctions in major cities? —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, major junctions are just that, we have a separate place for major cities.  --Holderca1 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The infobox is one of the first things that people see when they view the article. Showing that I-35 passes through MSP is a lot more important than showing that it intersects every I-x0. --NE2 06:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the list of control cities are for. I'd say in this case that I-90 should be listed over I-94 (I-90 being the longest interstate in the nation). No reason that we can't list both as a compromise if it comes to that. No need to edit war. —Scott5114↗ 08:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So then why did you remove I-30?  It intersects I-35 in DFW.  --Holderca1 13:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because I-30 isn't a major freeway ? -- KelleyCook 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? It's more so than I-94.  --Holderca1 15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously going to argue that a 360 mile spur from Ft. Worth to Little Rock with minimal traffic outside the Dallas metroplex is more major than a 1600 mile freeway that goes through four cities large enough to have major league baseball teams?  ... And before you answer with the stock "It's the number, stupid!", please cite a definitive source, preferably on either the FHWA or AASHTO's site that gives higher status to Interstates that end in 0 or 5.  They classify them into two groups, primary and auxiliary. -- KelleyCook 17:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, it's not a spur, it would have a one in front of it.  Yes, that is my argument, if there weren't other numbers available, than you would have a point, but the interstate isn't numbered 28, 32, 34, 36, 38...  Also, I didn't realize we only listed cities that have a major league baseball team.  Anyway, that isn't the point, the point above was we were listing junctions with other interstates in major cities, and I think DFW qualifies.  So even if it was I-32 in Dallas, it should be listed according to the above argument.  --Holderca1 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The junction list in the infobox is still for the most-significant junctions, right? 

message: There are some numbers that have not officially existed, but still appear in documents. The ways in which this can happen are:
#The state and AASHTO went through several rounds of figuring out what number to use. One example is I-495 in Pennsylvania, which became I-480 in 1958 and I-476 in 1964. However, even though I-480 was never signed, since none of the road has been built, the number was final until the renumbering of I-80S to I-76.
#A renumbering was approved but never carried out, for instance I-795 in Virginia.
#A number was suggested by a local government, but never used by the state DOT.
This would not apply to numbers that have:
#Appeared in official FHWA logs.
#Appeared on official state maps.
#Been signed. (Interstate 695 (New York))
#Been used as the official designation in planning studies. (?)
#Been used as a common name in news articles. (Interstate 605 (Washington))
I suggest that the ones that have not existed not be included in navigational boxes like template:I-95 aux and not be categorized in :Category:former and future Interstate Highways or anywhere else. They can be mentioned in the article about the current designation, but not in other articles such as the one about the "parent", unless it otherwise makes sense (such as explaining why a number was skipped).
Does this sound good? Are more examples needed? --NE2 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed clarification of scope 

message: I'd think the article name for Interstate 215 (Nevada) is a little misleading.  Since the article gives information on Clark County 215 as well, I'd suggest either splitting off the CC 215 info into its own new article (and merge it back when the beltway is completed) or rename the article and have two infoboxes.  Any ideas? --Geopgeop (T) 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The beltway is complete!  However it has not been fully upgraded from an expressway to a freeway. Vegaswikian 18:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the best option is to rename it. I-215 is only one segment of the larger Bruce Woodbury Beltway. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, renaming it would eliminate the need for two infoboxes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I support Las Vegas Beltway as well.  I think it's a better name only on the basis that I know where it is if you mention that to me.  No matter what happens, the actual article needs to be cleaned up some.  --MPD T / C 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That name works for me too, since it appears to be used frequently. Also, echoing MPD's thoughts, the Las Vegas moniker seems more appealing because it instantly provides the location of the route. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bruce Woodbury Beltway]] 

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) 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder from USRD 

message: More comments and opinions would be useful for the Interstate 355 FAC nomination. So far only four people, including myself, have weighed in with comments and opinions. Existing comments are being addressed, but to improve the article I'd be comfortable with more comments. —Rob (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More opinions needed for I-355 FAC 

message: I was told AARoads.com's interstate guide is not reliable. Are you kidding me? Their site has 25-30 guys working around the clock to keep up to the minute, accurate information on ALL interstate highways. All of their info is cited information too. For example, I-26 expansion in recent years. Look at all the local newspaper articles they site for that. If AAroads information isn't reliable, I don't know what is. I would like to hear why. -Airtuna08 (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SPS.  --Holderca1 talk 16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AARoads does not fall under the personal websites category. I can see how you'd think that, but take a venture on their site for a bit. You'll see it is a collective effort by several road experts who verify their findings with very good sources. -Airtuna08 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked at the page with the webmasters and contributors to the site and nothing there implies they are experts in the field.  From that it just appears they are fans of roads and nothing more.  Do any of the contributors have published works in the field of roads or highways?  --Holderca1 talk 17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: AARoads Kickoff Page Nothing in book form or what not yet, but that is going to happen soon with the growth of the site over the last couple years. The site is clearly more than a run of the mill site I can make in 30 seconds. AARoads is very documented with every bit of it being reliable information. They have clearly done their homework, so I would say this site is more than capable of being the source for the mileage of a certain interstate. -Airtuna08 (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly you are missing the point here, are they the ones going out and taking the measurements?  No.  They are citing mileage from another source, so use that source to cite the wikipedia article.  This is seeming more like a conflict of interest issue the more you argue it since there are advertisement issues with the site as well, those would need to be removed from the site as well, perhaps you can talk to the webmaster to have them removed.  --Holderca1 talk 04:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Clearly you don't know what an expert is then.  The policy clearly states:  "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  The site clearly fails this.  So, unless you have a valid reason that refutes this, other than I have been reading a map since I was 4.   What does stem cell research have to do with anything??  --Holderca1 talk 04:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Under my own definition of a reliable source, sure, they are reliable. However, by Wikipedia standards, they are not reliable, and GA and FA will never take AARoads as a source. Therefore, we should not cite them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: More to the point, they're not original sources. They (mostly) don't serve as agents for the state or federal governments that manage the road system; they research, cite and read maps just like we do here, except we don't provide our own conclusions to what we see. This applies to Kurumi, Interstate-guide and other fansites as well. It doesn't apply to anything .gov (within reason... though I have yet to see a wickedly wrong .gov source) or to websites of people who may have worked directly with the material in question (Richard C. Moeur comes to mind). —Rob (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:No_original_research, thought original research was disallowed. I think things are taken way too seriously on Wikipedia. The policies you speak of are changed everyday by Wiki admins. I've seen it with my work on Rockland County Routes. I can't make any edits without countless people hitting me over the head even though everything I do is constructive. Is AARoads scholarly? No, but its a big step up from the Wikipedia articles. Not a knock on Wiki, but AARoads specializes in Interstate Highways, while Wiki has articles on anything and everything. So, I really believe AARoads as a source can greatly enhance the Wiki Interstate pages. -Airtuna08 (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fansites are still technically tertiary sources. If the topic was sufficiently complicated or the secondary sources impossible to find (neither of which apply), maybe. But as it is, the good, sourceable fansites happen to provide sources for their articles, so it's up to us to not be lazy and find the secondary source ourselves for inclusion here. Better to get it right now than in FAC later. :-) —Rob (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: AARoads: In the News, AARoads: Acknowledgements and Affliates, AARoads: Feedback -Airtuna08 (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: And what's better? Having a citation needed marker next to the mileage on Interstate 95 or using a reliable source to backup the mileage. Again this is the length of a road, not whether or not the common cold can be remedied with honey. Not rocket science. -Airtuna08 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) Mileage...Source: October 31, 2002 Interstate Route Log and Finders List - the same one that is available from the FHWA. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: See, this is the thing:  are we going to go by Wikipedia:Ignore all rules or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Wikipedia:Sources?  It seems to me that the usual way of applying WP:IAR is that when there is a debate as to whether a particular rule applies to a particular case or not, consensus (rather than interpretation of the wording of the rule) decides.  As far as I understand, only WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:COPYRIGHT override WP:IAR.  So it boils down to:  let's get more community members, preferably those who are themselves experts in the subject, to provide feedback on this thread. Bwrs (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text: P.S. I have no opinion of my own about whether aaroads.com is a reliable source or not. I think the fact that the name of the website mimics or may cause confusion with AAA may weigh somewhat against the reliability of this source. Bwrs (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh - I haven't seen that argument before. I think "AA" comes from the first names of the webmasters:  --NE2 05:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AARoads 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: Is currently redirected to a state route page. Those in NY will obviously feel NY 28 is a more meaningful road, but which route is more broadly notable? I know as an interstate geek I'm more interested in Interstate 359 in Alabama than California State Route 99 lets say. Interstates are much more notable than state routes. This NY State Route has its own page and I-587 does not? Even worse, New York State Route 962J. This is insanity!!! >>>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with it. If I had my way Interstate 580 (Nevada) would redirect to U.S. Route 395 in Nevada. Even if both articles were improved to GA status they would be redundant. Another example that does redirect is Interstate 305, although in this case I doubt I-305 will ever be signed. Dave (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree on I-580 (and probably I-587). The only thing to ensure is that the coverage it would get as a separate article is still all there, with the exception of a full infobox. --NE2 05:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I really think that a way to deal with this is to determine what the main article is.  Then create satellite articles for the other roads with the appropriate infobox and a brief description of the road.  With a pointer to the main article for the road for the rest of information.  I suspect that is not going to be a popular position, but from a reader's point of view it likely makes the most sense.  Basically the satellite articles would only have information specific to the 'secondary' route.  Do these multiple named roads ever have exit number changes for one of these short stretches?  If so, the satellite article approach would allow a clearer presentation for the reader. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't the reader want a detailed description at I-587 (or whatever it redirects to) rather than having to click to NY 28 to see it? --NE2 06:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those looking for I-587 are not looking for NY 28. It is confusing. They are not the same route. -- UWMSports (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Another article I can think of that is in this situation is Interstate 381.  I know I'd like some sort of description at I-587.  But at the very least, I'd like to see a section in NY 28 titled "Interstate 587", that basically is like a mini article.  That right now seems like a logical first step.  How about this: let's create the I-587 section within NY 28, and see how much we have.  If it looks like we can get enough together for an article, let's do it.  I mean, it has no exits, so we don't need an exit list, or for that matter, an infobox, really.  --MPD T / C 06:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the necessity of creating a separate section. The history is identical to a realignment of NY 28, and the description would similarly duplicate the first bit of NY 28. --NE2 06:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Aside: the circle reconstruction actually added an exit, but it's just for a park and ride and wouldn't belong in an exit list anyway. --NE2 06:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The reader would like to know about I-587.  Redirects can be confusing if you wanted road 1 and found yourself at road 2.  Most readers likely don't understand redirects.  So having a summary with a link to the article on the longer road would appear to be a good choice.  The fact is, there is no perfect solution.  The question is what is the best for the readers, the encyclopedia and for updating.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Vegas makes an interesting point. Someone looking for I-587 could be very confused by the redirect. Also, the section where I-587 is is confusing in itself. The I-587 page should be rebuilt as a separate page. NYSDOT considers NY 28 and I-587 separate roads, so we should too. --Airtuna08 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Woodchuck, I live in Wisconsin and an Interstate highway in NY means alot more than a state route in NY. The problem is, people who live close to these routes write the articles. That isn't necessarily wrong, but it does create perspective problems. We need to see things in a broad perspective as that is what Wikipedia is. -- UWMSports (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Separate articles please! What does this map call that stretch of road? That's right, I-587. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *Fair enough -- UWMSports (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Interstate 587]] 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Interstate Highway System 

message: A user wants to change the design of the template. See Template talk:Interstates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Interstates]] 

message: Hey guys, I was making a few edits to Interstate 81 when I noticed how it's still considered a start article (probably should be C-Class...), and it only has one reference (which was the one I added today).  If I had the resources, I'd add references myself, particularly for the length of the interstate.  If anyone wants to help out, I'll be (slowly) working on it!  --Son (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interstate 81 

message: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 15#Category:Bannered Interstate Highways. — CharlotteWebb 14:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That should have been taken to WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related CFD 

message: Hi!  I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate.  This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group.  If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: What would you guys like to do with this one? I scooped it out of the speedy queue and prodded it, someone else prodded it out of the prod queue. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Rschen7754 just added a lot of content so it's probably okay now. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business routes of Interstate 5‎ 

message: Please see WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with [[WP:USRD]]?