Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/North Carolina/Archive 1

message: Sorry, I couldn't think of a good headline.
Now that all the PNGs are done, I went through the articles and added them in where they need to be.  Every article now has either an infobox or a shield image at the top and a succession box at the bottom.
If you create an infobox for a route that doesn't have one yet, please remove the duplicate shield image and succession box. -- NORTH talk 05:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the only reason I left the duplicate shield there and an unfinished infobox on one article was because my internet went out before I could finish.--TinMan 17:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem.  Just trying to keep the articles as clean as possible. ;-) -- NORTH talk 19:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes, shield images, succession boxes, etc. 

message: I promised SVGs above, but unfortunately I can't get them to work.  (See NC 2, NC 3, and NC 903.)  Oh well, so sad.  I may work on creating the missing PNGs by the end of the week, however. -- NORTH talk 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all I see is a two on NC 2.svg. Oh well, thanks for trying. I don't know much about .svg's except that for me, they are hard to make. Corel Draw is the only program I've found that will actually open them in the correct way so they are editable, but saving it the correct size is a pain. I have to resize the page over and over again. So, what I guess I'm saying is... that's better than what I can do. --TinMan 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I had no problem creating some county route shields for WP:NJSCR, but with these whenever I move them out of the folder I have them in (or upload them), I lose the background. -- NORTH talk 23:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Three cheers for Northenglish! Thanks! --TinMan 04:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, if you could help that would be great. On the shields, all the sides on the black box are the same length and all the sides on the white box are the same length (tiltted at 45 degrees). It's just that simple. Keep in mind that for larger route numbers, the boxes do not stretch, they remain square, unlike U.S. route shields. To compensate, the numbers shrink or squish. The best comparison for this is to look at 20px, 20px and 20px. Notice the numbers get smaller and the box does not alter. You probably already knew this, but just in case. --TinMan 04:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a look at what's to come:    If the design looks good, I'll make the rest. --TMF T - C 20:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great to me. The four is a little off center though it seems. --TinMan 22:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I fixed the position of the four. Also, shields for all of the present state highways have been uploaded to the Commons (in the format NC x.svg. I'll work on the decommissioned routes sometime in the near future. --TMF T - C 01:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Decommissioned routes are now done as well. --TMF T - C 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow that was fast. I switched Template:Infobox road/NC NC shield and the rest of the infobox to use the NC x.svg images. Just curious, what are the main advantages of svg's? I know they save space. --TinMan 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than saving space, SVGs can be resized to any resolution while maintaining their clarity. This makes the use of SVGs ideal when compared to PNGs (for example), which can become "cluttered" or blurry if resized too small or pixelated if resized too big. SVGs, though, are crystal clear regardless of how big or small the image is resized. --TMF T - C 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVGs? 

message: Jayron brought up an issue that I've been debating with myself for some time. How should we handle the "Major Junctions" part of the NC highways infobox. As a basic guideline, I've been including every junction with a freeway, whether it's I-40, US 421 (west of Winston-Salem), or NC 147 for all the routes. For short routes (less than 50 miles or so) or routes that don't have many junctions with other routes, I've included some of the minor junctions. If the state highway is is about 10 miles long, many times I just leave out the major junctions section altogether. For the really long state highways, I've tried to merge the major junctions and the major cities sections by listing the biggest junctions in the major cities. I really try not to leave out any cities if I can because these state highways may be the most important roads in these areas. Sometimes, if I can incorporate those cities in the article, I can leave them out of the infobox. The infoboxes shouldn't be lengthy, but I've been having trouble weighing principles, as in the case of NC 211. So I guess we need to come up with a guideline for which junctions should go in the major junctions section, which cities go in the major cities section and what should we do with route concurrencies (should that have its own box)? I think we should try to have no more than eight junctions in the major junctions section. What do y'all think? I would appreciate comment from members on this WikiProject as well as from experienced Wikipedians in routeboxes (like SPUI). --TinMan 19:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with all that as long as the the number of junctions in the box doesn't go over 8. If there are more than 8, start removing the least important ones. The infobox shouldn't be longer than the article itself if it can be helped. Plus, concurrencies should only be added as junctions if they are shared for a short distance. --TinMan 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on second thought, I guess we just have to limit them as much as we can for the longer routes. I just looked at NC 55 and all those junctions are important, so we can't really remove any. --TinMan 19:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So, what you are saying is only include a city once in the infobox.  If it occurs in a junction, don't put it in the cities section? -- Jayron32 18:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm saying is that we shouldn't have cities repeated over and over and over. If the highway goes through Atown, Btown, Ctown, Dtown, and Etown and towns A, B, D, and E are in the major junction box, you shouldn't have to create a "cities" section just to make Dtown known; if you want, talk about that town in the article. If you had only towns A and C in the major junctions box, then you could make a Major Cities box including towns A-E. Short routes are different though. The article body should be more in-depth than the infobox obviously. --TinMan 21:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't really like the Concurrency box idea because again, that makes the infobox longer and I don't see that as "need to know" information. If the routes split at a major junction, I would list it as such. If not, I would just mention the concurrency in the article body. Does that work for you? --TinMan 21:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All sounds great.  So we will a) List major concurrencies in article, not info-box b) Only treat state highways as "major" when maintained to a level equivalent to U.S. or Interstate Highways c) Only use the Cities section when major cities are NOT occuring in the junction list, which itself should be rare and d) Try to keep "major" junctions lists small, like 4-5 and definately no more than 8 for the longest routes.  Does that summarize the style guide for these articles? -- Jayron32 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, yeah. Sounds good to me too. Yet, like I said earlier, NC 55 has a lot of important interchanges and I don't think I can determine which ones to remove; I'd rather not delete any without having some mention in the article about them. But besides that issue, that seems like a good sytle guide. --TinMan 04:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Junctions Issue 

message: Your state is invited to participate in discussions for its highway naming convention. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. If you already have a convention that follows the State Name Type xx designation, it is possible to request an exemption as well. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2]]

message: Ok, I'm trying to find abbreviations that we can use for the infobox (mainly the main junctions box and termini). If there are concurrencies, I usually only state the type of highway once. (for example: US 15/501). The goal is to keep the junctions on one line if possible. The problem I come to is with Business Routes. Should I use BUS US 15 or US 15 BUS or US 15 Bus or Bus US 15 or US 15 BR or BR US 15? If I just use the whole word "Business", it gets really unasthetically pleasing. Personally, I like US 15 Bus. --TinMan 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "US 15 Bus" or "US 15 Bus." works for me. I agree with everything else as well. --TMF T - C 04:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abbreviations for the Infobox

message: As with many changes, there are consequences. Since we've all agreed at WP:SRNC to change to the "North Carolina Highway x" format, the word "state" will be removed from all the article titles in the near future when we get approval. This may cause a few minor problems that we need to think about. The category right now for our state highways is :Category:North Carolina State Highways.  Changing this category to "Category:North Carolina Highways" may create confusion, since US highways, Interstates, and other routes and freeways are also considered North Carolina Highways. How would we name the category so that we just have NC routes and not US 158 or Bryan Boulevard? Should we keep the cat name the same? Should we change it to "North Carolina Routes"? What do y'all think? --TinMan 04:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say keep the cat name the same. From my personal experience, it's no easy task to get a category relating to state roads renamed over at WP:CfD. --TMF T - C 05:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion to "North Carolina Highway x" Format Issues

message: Just as a heads up, NC Highway 55 is linked from wikinews regarding the big fire in Apex... Good chance for some visibility! Rob110178 22:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NC Highway 55 Visibility

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 22:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I decided to take a quick stroll through the page and make a list of pages that need to be generated. Maybe this will make it a little easier to find something specific to do! I will continue to work on this, let me know what you think as a start! Rob110178 14:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NCSH that need to be created

message: As a heads-up, I fixed the NCSH cleanup template a while ago to accept the second parameter for rationale. I'd add rationale for the five or so lacking such, but I'm not as familiar with the nuances of this project as other editors. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cleanup template 

message: I was just looking at the NCSH talk template and compared to other talk templates, it seems like ours is woefully lacking. I will attempt to create a reference on the talk page for the template, we can add alot of features, is there anything that the community would like to see to facilitate better visibility on our project? Rob110178 02:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which template is this? --MPD01605 (T / C) 03:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one:  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob110178 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything wrong with it.  It's similar to other route templates like .  But what do you suggest?  --MPD01605 (T / C) 04:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, ditto what you said, MPD01605. Suggestions for improvement? --TinMan 04:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is currently only an ability for map tagging and assessments. (Bear with me here, my mind is rambling its only 0500 Local) There are a significant number of things that can be programmed into this template but for me to start touching it I wanted to get the community feel for a good direction. If I go much further with adding capability I would like to do some substantial revamping of the WP page itself. For examples of the level of capability, see . I know we are not big enought to justify that level of detail, but it may help to add some detail. Perhaps a regional task force tagging capability (i.e. Coastal, Piedmont, Mountain). Let me know!! Rob110178 10:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if anything extra like that present on the Trains WP template is needed for this WP. The reason that the trains template has to be so complicated is that the trains WP covers railroading worldwide, while this WP covers only roads in North Carolina. That said, I can't think of anything that would be worth adding to the template, as assessment and maps are pretty much all that is necessary. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NCSH Talk Template

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 16:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Have all of the images in this project been updated? I can check this using AWB if everyone wants. We need to look at getting new members... It seems to be getting a bit quiet around here, I know I have been guilty as well, but is anyone else alive? :-) Rob110178 10:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woah, I missed this comment. I've been alive for a while. My most recent creation was: NC 33. I've updated the to-do list somewhat. It seems though, that every time I finish an article, a new route is created somewhere... will we ever catch up? Lol. --Triadian 18:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List 

message: I'm assuming for the NC highway infoboxes that we should be trying to have all Interstate links redirect to the appropriate "Interstate XX in North Carolina" article, i.e. I-40. Well, apparently this has been in use for a while but I found instead of typing all that out over and over you can just pipe trick it with . That's just so much easier and I thought that I'd share. :) --Triadian 18:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox pipe trick for interstates 

message: Ok, a while back, we as a Wikiproject agreed to start the articles for NC state highways with the abbreviated and most commonly used "NC XX" form and use that form throughout the article. This is different from a lot of other states, with exceptions like Michigan: M-4 (Michigan highway). This, seems to have worked out well as a compromise. My issue is with links to other NC state highways within a NC state highway article. At WP:USRD, I was told that links for NC should be North Carolina Highway x within the main text of the article, which makes sense for all articles except for NC highways. Let's say I'm typing an article on NC 8 and I'm describing its route, which crosses North Carolina Highway 150 and North Carolina Highway 67. Can't I just use NC 150 and NC 67 when I'm describing? It seems silly to have just NC 8 as the only abbreviated form and the rest in expanded form. Any thoughts? --Triadian 18:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. --NE2 04:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling out of NC XX 

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 16:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates

message: Should anything be changed or added before I nominate this as a good article? --NE2 04:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Charlotte Route 4]]

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) 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder from USRD

message: Found on MTR: you can now find maps for 1922, 1930, 1940, 1951, 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 at . More will added in the future. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. --NE2 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCDOT posting map archive 

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) 21:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

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 06:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC on coordinates in highway articles