Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 8

message: See /Notability#Memorial highways. —Scott5114↗ 23:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of memorial highways 

message: I'm going to start systematically weeding out this neologism. Are there any objections to "overlap" as the standard replacement? It seems like the simplest term, is used by many DOTs, and can be easily conjugated. --NE2 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use concurrency. I don't believe there's anything wrong with duplex, triplex, multiplex, and so on, and in fact seem more descriptive, but that doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion.—Scott5114↗ 06:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong is that they're neologisms only used by roadgeeks. Why do you say to use concurrency rather than overlap? --NE2 07:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concurrency is a term in use by at least Caltrans (see ref № 1 in the linked article) —Scott5114↗ 07:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, and other places use overlap, such as New York (as TMF says below), Virginia, the FHWA (including in the MUTCD), and Ontario. --NE2 07:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Concurrency or overlap works. I know NYSDOT exclusively uses overlap; can't speak for other states. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer concurrency (clarify: as the noun).  But only on the basis that it sounds better.  I think overlap is a good verb, concurrency is a good noun.  Let's not get nitpicky though.  --MPD T / C 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with either "concurrency" or "overlap", however please use concurrency more as it is the noun.  The word "overlap" should be used when the prose starts to get boring. —O (说 • 喝) 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? Overlap is a noun too. --NE2 09:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks fine to me.  --MPD T / C 15:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me, although like you, I use overlap in the "end of multiplex" case. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is important to note that this it not a rule as to what we can or can not say- except "multiplex", which is not acceptable.  As long as it makes sense and gets the message across, it's all good!  --MPD T / C 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly; anything that's used by a DOT or is a simple word is fine: overlap, concurrency, overlay, join, ... --NE2 19:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: An "unconventional use of a word" is a neologism. --NE2 17:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Multiplex" 

message: See talk page - it's a bit more than I can handle on my own, I think. —Rob (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northwest Tollway renamed to Jane Addams Memorial Tollway (IL) 

message: A situation that some may be interested in: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 8, provincial highway templates... --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada template 

message: I saw this on the US 31 page and besides not being a non-conforming/non-collapsible box nor being a part of the project, I really just don't like the idea of it.  Other much larger cities don't have it.  I was about to TFD the thing, but don't want to run afoul of the project. What say you? -- KelleyCook 05:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks likes it's based off . I made that template because it would ease navigation and present what could be confusing (I-90 has 4 different names?) in a sensible manner. That said, my preference is to have it be collapsible, and start off collapsed, but I haven't looked into that yet. —Rob (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it was easy enough to fix but are we going to do this for all the cities now?  Having 15 collapsible boxes at the bottom on the I-80 page seems like a not good idea (on par with Movies starring XXXX which were eliminated).  It is better suited by a Category.  -- KelleyCook  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KelleyCook (talk • contribs) 14:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, these would best be suited on an "Interstate X in State" article rather than the main article.  But a case-by-case basis in best in this.  --MPD T / C 16:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I would only include on the state specific pages.  --Holderca1 17:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How does it look now? --Holderca1 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about now? --NE2 15:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Metro Birmingham expressways]] 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of State Highways in Kentucky (1001-2000) --NE2 13:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: Should anything be changed or added before I nominate this as a good article? --NE2 04:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  If only you had mentioned this project, I could have gotten some pictures.  I was in Charlotte today. --MPD T / C 05:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were probably already on the road when I decided to expand the article. Basically I decided to check the Google News archive to see if it had anything on the route, and a decent article came up, so I ran with it. --NE2 06:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If you happen to travel on the Fairfax County Parkway, some photos would be nice. --NE2 10:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything specific?  I may have some Wiki-worthy. --MPD T / C 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, just general views of the road and what it looks like. A photo showing the signage for the HOV ramps might be good. --NE2 22:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link to my general road-photo album.  Mostly includes signs of various sorts and some roadways.  It's not organized at all, and not all are good pictures,, but some crappy ones have interesting stuff on them.  This is another one of my pages.  That one doesn't have a lot of stuff though.  At the bottom of the first linked page, you'll find two photos from I-95 NB approaching Fairfax Co Parkway.  I have some somewhere of parts of 7100 and 7900, but I'm in the process of moving all my photos to different hard drives, so it's all a mess.  I'll definitely get a few of 7100 and 7900, including from HOV, next time I'm home, which will be soon.  You can go ahead and use any of those pictures that you find fit and useful.  Just credit me.  They're all licensed under cc-by-sa 3.0 or Wiki's closest equivalent for Wikimedia, cc-by-nc-nd for off-Wiki work. I'll see what else I can find on one of my four hard drives. --MPD T / C 05:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For clarification: you're willing to release them under template:cc-by-3.0? Wikipedia doesn't accept nc or nd, though it does accept sa, if you want to go with cc-by-sa. --NE2 09:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, the 166A-B looks great for illustrating the gap in the parkway. --NE2 09:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You understand that once images are posted here under a license, anyone can then use them under that license for "off-Wiki work"? --NE2 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew that, but forgot about that.  It happens.  All my images are released under cc-by-sa.  I like that one better after thinking about it.  But yeah, if there's anything else you want pictures of, let me know.  Central NC, central VA, or northern VA are easy.  Maybe WV eastern panhandle if it's east of I-81.  I'll see what I can do. --MPD T / C 21:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Charlotte Route 4]] 

message: At Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants there is a new list. We're combining all the USRD participant lists here. Membership will now be universal. Please go and update your info ASAP; if you do not do so by a date in mid-October you will be removed from the project list. All project members will be spammed with this news within the next week. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New participants list 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of auxiliary Interstate Highways unconnected with Parent --NE2 13:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Street (Baltimore) —Scott5114↗ 05:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: Would it be a good idea to create a subpage of this project, or WikiProject Highways, to bring to others' attention and discuss news, like new roads and decommissionings? I'm thinking of something like this:
===November 1, 2007===
*The four-lane New Brunswick Route 2 is scheduled to open.
*:New Brunswick announced that the old route will become Route 879. --Canadian guy
*Interstate 238 will be closed for two years, with an official detour via I-338.
*:Where should we mention this? Should we add artificial reef to our project? --Gullible dude
Essentially it would function both to keep us up-to-date of happenings and to ensure that articles are updated. --NE2 08:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about doing it through the portal? It could use a steady maintainer if you'd like to take it on. —Scott5114↗ 05:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking of something that others can comment on, but I'll look at and think about the portal. --NE2 05:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll go on record as saying I don't like the move of the portal to NA Roads. We have trouble keeping it updated for US roads; we don't need the hassle of having to worry about other countries as well. And what about the selected article? That was supposed to be for US roads only. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 10:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I also fail to see where this move was discussed. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 10:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was boldness; I was asked to maintain it, and I decided to. --NE2 11:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then have fun maintaining it. Don't expect much help on the international front. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 12:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How does the "crappiness" of the Canadian project, which would also apply to a number of states, affect the portal? --NE2 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: USRD is an established project. CRWP is not. We shouldn't distort things to make CRWP look better than it is. Furthermore, the portal was specifically created to highlight USRD accomplishments. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia:Portal, "Portals may be associated with one or more WikiProjects; unlike WikiProjects, however, they are meant for both readers and editors of Wikipedia, and should promote content and encourage contribution." Portals do not exist to "make projects look good". --NE2 23:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider "promote content and encourage contribution." making a project look good. USRD does not want to be associated with CRWP by any means. USRD, being much larger than CRWP and the Mexican roads and being drastically different, deserves its own portal. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Portals should encourage contributions to articles, not WikiProjects. Projects do not "deserve" anything; they exist simply to help write articles. --NE2 23:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion's open, I guess. --NE2 23:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible "news" page? 

message: *The four-lane New Brunswick Route 2 is scheduled to open.
*:New Brunswick announced that the old route will become Route 879. --Canadian guy
*Interstate 238 will be closed for two years, with an official detour via I-338.
*:Where should we mention this? Should we add artificial reef to our project? --Gullible dude
Essentially it would function both to keep us up-to-date of happenings and to ensure that articles are updated. --NE2 08:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about doing it through the portal? It could use a steady maintainer if you'd like to take it on. —Scott5114↗ 05:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking of something that others can comment on, but I'll look at and think about the portal. --NE2 05:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll go on record as saying I don't like the move of the portal to NA Roads. We have trouble keeping it updated for US roads; we don't need the hassle of having to worry about other countries as well. And what about the selected article? That was supposed to be for US roads only. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 10:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I also fail to see where this move was discussed. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 10:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was boldness; I was asked to maintain it, and I decided to. --NE2 11:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then have fun maintaining it. Don't expect much help on the international front. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 12:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How does the "crappiness" of the Canadian project, which would also apply to a number of states, affect the portal? --NE2 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: USRD is an established project. CRWP is not. We shouldn't distort things to make CRWP look better than it is. Furthermore, the portal was specifically created to highlight USRD accomplishments. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia:Portal, "Portals may be associated with one or more WikiProjects; unlike WikiProjects, however, they are meant for both readers and editors of Wikipedia, and should promote content and encourage contribution." Portals do not exist to "make projects look good". --NE2 23:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider "promote content and encourage contribution." making a project look good. USRD does not want to be associated with CRWP by any means. USRD, being much larger than CRWP and the Mexican roads and being drastically different, deserves its own portal. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Portals should encourage contributions to articles, not WikiProjects. Projects do not "deserve" anything; they exist simply to help write articles. --NE2 23:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion's open, I guess. --NE2 23:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: November 1, 2007

message: See /Notability#Major arterials. —Scott5114↗ 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability: Major arterials 

message: I think it's time to move towards a resolution.  I agree with Holderca1.  I think this is what WP:USRD should be used for.  We have IH, USH, and the state WPs.  USRD should keep standardization for all 28 state WPs, and have direct control over the remaining 32 states that doesn't have a WP.  That's my proposal.  --Son 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like the status quo. I'll take it. —Rob (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My take on things has always been that the USRD standards exist as a baseline applied everywhere, and the subprojects exist to adapt that baseline to the particular circumstances of their state's system (e.g. MO's lettered routes, OK's spurs, TX's many systems). In the hypothetical situation of Wyoming breaking USRD guidelines, I'd say that they would have the right to do that if and only if they can prove that breaking the standards so badly is necessary for their particular state. I'm talking about breaking them badly, not like having an extra section or two, more like renaming a section or mandating all route descriptions are to be north to south or using a totally different infobox. Oklahoma still has , which exists because it can handle duplicated route numbers (of which Oklahoma has many) better than Infobox road can. Basically, states have the latitude to do whatever as long as they don't totally flaunt the standards, and they can even do that if they show it's necessary. —Scott5114↗ 21:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Scott. Seems like status quo to me, and I have no problems with that. An observation as well: if anything is discussed on USRD regarding a change to state projects (like the lists), a link to the discussion should be spammed to all of the projects. Otherwise, we get the situation above after the change has already been completed. A spammed link and a pre-combination discussion may not have prevented the discussion itself, but it would've prevented the hassle of having to break apart what's been done. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And I just realized Holderca1 made that point above... --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What Son and Holderca1 said. master sonT - C 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The status of [[WP:USRD]] 

message: * 27 September 2007 - expires 2 October
:
:: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]]) 

message: I reorganized and partially rewrote this several-year-old featured article, and would like comments on whether I did a good job. Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulaski Skyway/archive1. --NE2 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Pulaski Skyway]] 

message: Someone has vandalized U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. Well not really, they vandalized a page that is getting called by the info road box in this page. Instead of the US 50 shield, an advertisement for a band's website on myspace is displayed. But only on the Nevada page, the Utah, California, and National pages display fine. I can't find the affected page. Can someone more familiar with how infobox code works help? (and let me know what they did, I almost want to congratulate this vandal for their ingenuity =-) ).
Davemeistermoab 19:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I got it. Someone vandalized Template:Infobox road/NV US shield. Davemeistermoab 19:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh, he probably searched Google for NV-US. --NE2 02:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He he, in other words the vandal was incredibly lucky, not smart =-) Davemeistermoab 02:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism from helll.... 

message: Jeff02 reverted Rschen's change in the MDRD participants list, with a summary of brought back participants list, I don't mind there being another "main list", as long as there is still a list here containing only this project's members.  Was there any real consensus to merge all members' names into the USRD participants list?  All I know that every other project except Maryland didn't mind the change, but we have one that does.  Remarks, anyone? —O (说 • 喝) 20:30, 21 September 2007 (GMT)
:I asked in the section above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I see it is this, a new list was added to contain all members who are members of USRD and/or one of its subprojects, that I have nothing against, like I said.  The only thing I have a problem with is the actual removal of the participants lists from the subprojects.  I was actually surprised to have my edit reverted and brought into question, especially considering it wasn't a full revert, all I did was readded the list and changed the message, still telling potential members to also add their name to the main list.  I just feel it's a bit more convenient to have a concise list of members of the individual project right on the project page, rather than having to sift through the main list trying to find the members that have listed "MD" as a subproject.  Also, I don't see how simply adding the list back will hurt anything, the main list can still serve whatever purpose it was intended to serve with or without a separate list on any subproject page(s).-Jeff (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, this provides for content forking, which will be a pain to manage. I'm sure that there will be users who have added their names to WP:MDSH only. Furthermore, this reinforces the idea of universal membership across USRD. And the participants table is sortable... --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this is… pretty ridiculous. I fail to see the logic in getting rid of each state's participant lists. Then again, I haven't seen the logic in a lot of stuff that's gone on here lately. --Sable232 02:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes it easier to manage the USRD project (such as posting inactivity notices, handling username changes, etc.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Do I really need to answer this? CRWP is not a part of USRD by any means. However, the state highway WPs are a part of USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But both are part of WikiProject Highways. Is there a reason that wasn't used as the "parent"? --NE2 02:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:HWY is a shell project that simply exists and nothing more. Furthermore, the same editors edit nearly all the USRD projects, whereas there are only two or three editors that edit both CRWP and USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're saying you've never edited a Canadian road article? Or are you including yourself in that "two or three"? --NE2 02:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no longer a CRWP member... --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that have to do with anything? I never joined most of the WikiProjects I contribute to, yet I listed myself as editing "all over the place" on the participants page. --NE2 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are now a USRD project member. Correct? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm on the list. I'd also put myself down as editing Canada if those participant lists were merged. --NE2 03:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By your logic, we should merge the Antarctica participants list with CRWP and USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it weren't a joke project, sure. --NE2 03:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the point you are trying to make? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That, assuming the current merge makes sense, there's no reason not to also merge Canada. --NE2 04:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because CRWP has absolutely nothing to do with USRD? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has as much to do with USRD as the various state WikiProjects. --NE2 04:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (Indent reset) Um, no? Do I need to explain that the United States is not part of Canada? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Virginia is not part of Maryland, yet those lists were merged. --NE2 04:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you trying to accomplish? The destruction of USRD? Those lists were merged into USRD. Virginia was not merged into MDSH, which is basically what you are proposing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you're talking about; I'm proposing having one contributors list under WP:HWY. USRD would not be "destroyed" any more than the individual state projects have been "destroyed". --NE2 05:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that proposal is being rejected. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember any discussion about the merge of state project participant lists into USRD; why couldn't someone do the same with HWY without discussion? --NE2 05:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except there was a discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Archive_7#User_list_revamp. Just that noone saw fit to respond. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I wonder if anyone would have noticed if I had proposed it on WT:HWY. Seriously, I have no problem with the merge, but I understand where others are coming from, and think a merge with Canada would make just as much sense. --NE2 06:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging the participants list into a shell project would make little sense. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it shouldn't be a "shell project" then. I may do some work on it. --NE2 06:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me and probably for the rest of USRD, but USRD will not submit to any conflicting standards or subordinate to HWY or CRWP. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you apply USRD standards to its subprojects, if you're not willing to have standards from HWY applied to USRD? --NE2 08:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because those are child projects, parts that make up the whole of USRD. They were started with the understanding that they are such.—Scott5114↗ 08:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: USRD was started on September 18, 2005, HWY on January 27, 2004. --NE2 08:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: <- I don't see MDRD as being a "part" of USRD any more than it is a part of WikiProject Maryland, and yet it seems that USRD is trying to claim ownership of all of the individual state-level projects.  The state-level projects are each their own project, and if a change is to be made that affects those projects, I expect it to be first discussed on their talk pages rather than just throwing up a notice here, waiting a few days and applying it.  I think the fact that I didn't know about this until I checked my watchlist to find that the participants list had been removed, really says something about how things are being done around here.  I find this especially disturbing considering a recent post promising more openness.  Despite that, to use a term from the letter, I feel this is an example of the "walled garden" phenomenon, decisions are being made here without consulting the individual projects they affect.-Jeff (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious - what defines a child subproject - and I'm referring to the view of Wikipdia as a whole? master sonT - C 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I say this because I am growing concerned of the actions that have taken place that caused this debate (such as the subject of this discussion - the universal lists)  I don't see WP:TROP getting its list userped into WP:METEO at all - the claim that this userping is because its "easier to maintain" or similar things seems ludicrous to say the least.  Some projects use additional attempts at communication and want to reach the subprojects - and think that merging the lists help - but it again leads to the same problem we have here. master sonT - C 15:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As noted before, I waited a long time- at least a few weeks- before carrying this change out- so long that the post archived. Furthermore, there are so many subprojects that it would have been unreasonable to post on every single one. (And you claim that this is not being open...) The projects will remain independent; this is just a consolidation of the participants lists for a variety of reasons. The same 3-4 people are on just about every single participant list- which is redundant and means nothing, for example. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want an example of not being open, then look at the sudden move of our portal to Portal:North American Roads. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why should I join the project for all of U.S. roads when I'm only editing Maryland roads? - Algorerhythms 17:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you join the USRD project, indicating that you only edit MD roads. This is so we have one list of everyone who edits the MD roads. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, just say on the USRD list that you will only edit Maryland roads. It's almost the same thing. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 17:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is WP:POINT. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That suggestion does not help the discussion at all. Rather, it is inflammatory. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He makes a good point, though - if consolidating all of the participants lists of the state roads projects under the U.S. roads project is a good idea, why isn't consolidating the participants list of U.S. Roads under its parent project? As for WP:POINT, how does simply suggesting that disrupt anything? Disruptive behavior would be actually doing that without discussion. - Algorerhythms 19:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to draw the line somewhere- otherwise, we would have Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiProject with all few million Wikipedia users. We are drawing the line at WP:USRD since the rest of WP:USA tends more towards geography articles. Road editors should not be combined with geography editors. Also, United States road editors tend to clump and consult together, thus justifying our consolidation together and our separation from WP:CRWP, WP:USA, WP:HWY, WP:MXRD, WP:NARD, and any other stupid suggestion that can be fielded. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what Master Son means is projects like WP:WPMD being merged into WP:USA, not the state roads projects, and he makes a valid point.  Even though WPMD is a subproject of WP:USA, much the same way that MDRD is a subproject of USRD, I have never had any experience with someone from WP:USA coming into WPMD and redirecting our project banner to theirs, removing our participants list, and in general performing actions that imply that they "own" our project.  WP:USA, just wouldn't do those things, and if anyone asked them and the state projects to all merge their participants lists, they'd probably be laughed at.-Jeff (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jeff02 for the clarification, and I apologize to Master_son about that. However, there are several users that edit all the USRD states, which USA does not have. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How about we just edit articles? Unless I'm mistaken, the only thing the participants list actually matters for is newsletter delivery, and we can compile a separate list for that. --NE2 04:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are reasons for the combined list. For example, I needed a list to spam everyone tonight. For users who change their names, we can change the name one place. Or if a user leaves a project. This is so we don't have 15 different projects where we have to fix everything (like Vishwin and Myselfalso who changed their names over the summer). --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You only "needed" to spam everyone because of the change; I can't remember getting anything else except for the newsletter confirmation (which was of course newsletter-related) in my year or so of being here. So why can't we let people add or remove their names wherever they want, and just keep a combined list for newsletter purposes? --NE2 04:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SRNC involved spamming. Also, when people add their names to a separate list, they don't get added to the newsletter list automatically; they have to go to another page and sign up themselves. It takes too long to get all teh new editors from every project. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was what, once over a year ago? Just add something to each participants list saying "sign up at this link for the newsletter". --NE2 04:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with that, but why should someone else do the reverts?  --Son 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone really wants to have it done, then they should have to do it. I don't have all the time in the world. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: First I've heard of this from the newsletter. I support doing this, however I don't have time to do any of the reverts. However I like the transcluding idea of Prop 1 better. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal participants? 

message: Ok - if this is going to happen - then lets suggest that all U.S. State Wikiprojects all merge their participant into one list under WP:USA Now do you see where I'm going? master sonT - C 18:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is WP:POINT. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That suggestion does not help the discussion at all. Rather, it is inflammatory. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He makes a good point, though - if consolidating all of the participants lists of the state roads projects under the U.S. roads project is a good idea, why isn't consolidating the participants list of U.S. Roads under its parent project? As for WP:POINT, how does simply suggesting that disrupt anything? Disruptive behavior would be actually doing that without discussion. - Algorerhythms 19:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to draw the line somewhere- otherwise, we would have Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiProject with all few million Wikipedia users. We are drawing the line at WP:USRD since the rest of WP:USA tends more towards geography articles. Road editors should not be combined with geography editors. Also, United States road editors tend to clump and consult together, thus justifying our consolidation together and our separation from WP:CRWP, WP:USA, WP:HWY, WP:MXRD, WP:NARD, and any other stupid suggestion that can be fielded. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what Master Son means is projects like WP:WPMD being merged into WP:USA, not the state roads projects, and he makes a valid point.  Even though WPMD is a subproject of WP:USA, much the same way that MDRD is a subproject of USRD, I have never had any experience with someone from WP:USA coming into WPMD and redirecting our project banner to theirs, removing our participants list, and in general performing actions that imply that they "own" our project.  WP:USA, just wouldn't do those things, and if anyone asked them and the state projects to all merge their participants lists, they'd probably be laughed at.-Jeff (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jeff02 for the clarification, and I apologize to Master_son about that. However, there are several users that edit all the USRD states, which USA does not have. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: section break

message: Since apparently people are complaining, I'm going to propose a compromise. States that wish will have their own participants list, but it should be transcluded into the main participants list. There will still be the option to join all of USRD and not be attached to a specific state, and the "national" users will be discouraged from joining all 28 state projects. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we just edit articles? Unless I'm mistaken, the only thing the participants list actually matters for is newsletter delivery, and we can compile a separate list for that. --NE2 04:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are reasons for the combined list. For example, I needed a list to spam everyone tonight. For users who change their names, we can change the name one place. Or if a user leaves a project. This is so we don't have 15 different projects where we have to fix everything (like Vishwin and Myselfalso who changed their names over the summer). --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You only "needed" to spam everyone because of the change; I can't remember getting anything else except for the newsletter confirmation (which was of course newsletter-related) in my year or so of being here. So why can't we let people add or remove their names wherever they want, and just keep a combined list for newsletter purposes? --NE2 04:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SRNC involved spamming. Also, when people add their names to a separate list, they don't get added to the newsletter list automatically; they have to go to another page and sign up themselves. It takes too long to get all teh new editors from every project. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was what, once over a year ago? Just add something to each participants list saying "sign up at this link for the newsletter". --NE2 04:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: We undo the combination of the participant lists. However, someone else will need to do the reverts. Also, let's let the inactivity notification run its course, since the messages have already been spammed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that, but why should someone else do the reverts?  --Son 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone really wants to have it done, then they should have to do it. I don't have all the time in the world. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: First I've heard of this from the newsletter. I support doing this, however I don't have time to do any of the reverts. However I like the transcluding idea of Prop 1 better. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 2

message: Simple question: should browsing be placed on both the multistate article and the state-detail articles or just on the state-detail articles? This question was asked once before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways/Archive 2#Subpage technicalities; however, nothing came of the discussion. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're using the browsing, you're either already in the sequence, or you're specifically interested in the highways of that state. Either way, you'll be at the state-detail article. --NE2 10:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I assume you want it on just the state-detail article. Hopefully others can comment on this issue. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be on the state detailed article if it exists, on the main article if the state article doesn't exist.  --Holderca1 23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browsing on multistate articles when state-detail articles exist 

message: I was looking over the importance scale today and noticed something.  This freeway was built to interstate standards per MDOT.  It is of major commerical importance in that it has commerical truck volumes as high as the interstates 96 & 196.  It is more of a bypass of Grand Rapids proper for 96-196 than just a local or state important route.  Given that both 96 and 196 are rated as high on the scale and that M6 is a bypass of those routes I would think its assestment for importance is rather low considering these facts.  If this is the wrong place to put this feel free to either move this to the proper location or just tell me.  --Mihsfbstadium 15:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; change it. --NE2 09:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michigan State Highway 6 

message: We have an article on the main page, albeit as a Did you know?.  I created Wurzbach Parkway several days ago, something that I had planned on doing for awhile and never got around to doing it.  I hand't even thought of nominating it for DYK because it is more of a forgotten freeway in San Antonio since it's hard to get to it and mainly used by residents that live near to it.  Thanks to User:NE2 for coming along and expanding it and nominating it.  Lets get back to what we came here for, writing and improving articles.  --Holderca1 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot to mention that I found the article via User:AlexNewArtBot/USRoadsSearchResult. I go through there regularly and add project tags, and it's a decent place to look for DYK nominations. --NE2 19:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amongst the turmoil, there are bright spots 

message: On Interstate 84 in Oregon, the mileposts (and thus the exit numbers) jump over two miles at I-205 due to a change in planned alignment. How should I show this in the exit list? --NE2 00:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is how CA handles it when there is a postmile equation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean using two columns where they differ, kind of like Interstate 580 (California)? I can't find any postmile equations on a quick look through the major Interstates in California. --NE2 00:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aagh, it's taking forever to find one. Basically, you use a colspan saying something to that effect. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the one I just added to I-84? --NE2 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe using more words instead of symbols, but yeah. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? Replace = by equals? If so, why? --NE2 01:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or just say is, and replace "back" and "forward" with eastbound and westbound. It just makes things more clear for the non-roadgeek (or non-CA-roadgeek). --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eastbound and westbound don't make sense to me; the mileposts on both directions of I-84 skip from 7.37 in the numbering west of that point ("back") to 9.70 in the numbering east of that point ("ahead"). I'd hope that the article at milepost equation would include details so we don't need several sentences each time one of these occurs. --NE2 01:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milepost question 

message: There are quite a few of these out there and they have different structure, different naming convention, different inclusion criteria.  I created a cat to put all of these in since most of them didn't have a cat to begin with.  Here is the cat: :Category:Metropolitan area highway templates.  I am sure there are many more that I have missed, feel free to add them to the cat.  Should we come up with a design standard for at least the US navboxes?  Which cities get them, those larger than a million?  What do we include, just freeways, or more?  --Holderca1 14:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it looks like they're here to stay, developing some standards for them is probably a good idea. Right now, we have templates that are compact and collapsible (like the NYC one) and others that are clunky and lack any type of hide/show support (like the LA one). --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metro area highway nav boxes 

message: ...think again. I did some browsing through the deletion log tonight and noticed that a hefty number of Ohio state route articles with literally an infobox, an external link, and a category had (correctly) been speedy deleted under criteria A1 (no context). It should be noted that these "articles" also lacked a lead, or, for that matter, any prose of any kind - your classic sub-stub. IMO, if this doesn't provide incentive to expand some stubs, or at least ensure our existing stubs aren't substubs, I don't know what will. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are those the ones where I removed the only text as being a copyvio from John Simpson's site? --NE2 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I don't think so, actually. It looks like Milktaco wrote the substubs; Ohio State Route 369 at least is still around. On the other hand, the copyvios I removed, such as , had other text. --NE2 06:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, there were some:  That means that they had only an infobox and history anyway. --NE2 06:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should put these "permastubs" into a "minor highways (or whatever) of..." article without infoboxes or something (or just let them go and put brief detail (no infobox) on the highway list. If these articles are going nowhere - why keep them? master sonT - C 15:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These weren't permastubs. These had room for expansion: they just had an infobox and an external link, and categories. No prose at all. —Scott5114↗ 17:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you thought stubs were safe from deletion... 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe A. Gonsalves Memorial Interchange -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: Please read and comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#Proposals for clarifications. --NE2 05:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to the [[WP:ELG|exit list guide]] 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 495 (North Carolina) --NE2 12:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: Basically, a user has taken it upon himself to a) remove shields from all exit lists and b) convert WP:ELG into an essay. Discussion started at WT:ELG then went all over the place. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exit list guide issues