Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 5

message: For some reason, these are all separate articles and I put a mergeto template on the last two, and a mergefrom template on the first.  I am not sure why they were separated in the first place, but they all should clearly be in the same article.  I would also personally suggest renaming it "List of numbered highways in Iowa" or something like that if it is all merged.  DandyDan2007 07:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After further looking, I found an article called List of Iowa numbered highways.  Not sure why there needs to be 4 different articles.  And I have no idea what the finished article should look like.  DandyDan2007 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fourth article should definitely not exist, given that the first three do.  Some states have a single article, some state split them into the three articles you mentioned in your first post.  Either way is fine with me. -- NORTH talk 07:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Nevada state highways was a format that I believe SPUI created.  It is basic and covers a lot of ground.  I think this is a reasonable format to use or upgrade to a standard type of format. Vegaswikian 07:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little too basic.  The formatting's a little off, with the links bouncing back and forth between columns.  SPUI created that format over a year ago and applied it to several states, many of which have moved toward something else. -- NORTH talk 07:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I am moving a couple of states away from that format to a table that gives a short description of each highway.  A list of numbers is not very helpful and is more easily accomplished with categories.  Texas and Florida have split theres, mainly do to the size of the article.  The main article talks about the system itself with links to the highways listed out on separate pages.  --Holderca1 13:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW.  I've never seen the other three (good thing I left it alone.)  anyway - Best choice to me by far is to put the US and interstate highway lists on Iowa State Highways and rename it "List of <Iowa numbered highways>".  If you feel that makes for a large article, separate the three and use a dab page (I think that's what the 4th was supposed to be) -- master_sonTalk -  Edits 14:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A dab page shouldn't be needed, just put something like this, Texas_State_Highways#See_also in the main article.  --Holderca1 14:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Master son. The state highway list has a nice simple format, just expand and rename it. --Sable232 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Part of me wants to say "Isn't this what categories are for"? Illinois just has List of Illinois Routes and :Category:Interstate Highways in Illinois. —Rob (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say either have them all on one page, or all split and having none of the lists on the main page, not somewhere in between.  --Holderca1 11:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fine the way you have it.  If you needed redirect help, anyone with AWB can do the job in no time flat. -- master_sonTalk -  Edits 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all done.  Just need someone with AWB to fix the redirects.  DandyDan2007 21:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - there will be a few left - all talk pages -- master_sonTalk -  Edits 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Iowa State Highways]], [[List of Interstate Highways in Iowa]], and [[List of U.S. Highways in Iowa]] 

message: I merged all the articles into Iowa State Highways.  I was going to redirect all that into List of Iowa state highways, but there would be a lot of redirects to do.  DandyDan2007 12:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine the way you have it.  If you needed redirect help, anyone with AWB can do the job in no time flat. -- master_sonTalk -  Edits 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all done.  Just need someone with AWB to fix the redirects.  DandyDan2007 21:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - there will be a few left - all talk pages -- master_sonTalk -  Edits 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Numerous variations of infoboxes are currently being used on articles for U.S. route bannered routes. Some are using ; others use . Both infoboxes, when set up correctly, perform the same function. We should use only one or the other, however, and for consistency, I propose that  be used. My rationale is that since the browse row in the infobox is a non-issue, as these articles are not to be included in any browses per WP:USRD/INNA, the state that the route is in is a non-issue is well, making  suitable for this purpose. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, seeing as we have (and use) . What about U.S. Route X in Y? Stick with ? —Rob (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think per this discussion, it should be fine for people who want to use  to continue to do so.  For me at least, I work primarily on single state routes, and NJ uses infobox road directly, so it comes naturally to me.  That being said, I have no problem if people want to convert the infobox road's to a specific infobox, provided they're doing something else at the same time, not just unnecessarily "fixing" a redirect.  (Actually in this case, they're unnecessarily creating a redirect.)  Basically, I think it should be the same conclusion we came to regarding the "type" in the infobox. -- NORTH talk 19:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bigger question, then, is whether or not bannered routes should use "state=whatever state it's in" or "state=US", if using Infobox road. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it probably doesn't matter, but I'm definitely leaning towards state=state and type=US. -- NORTH talk 22:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does matter in this case, as "state=state" and "state=US" bring up two completely different sets of links below the infobox. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware of that.  In that case it's probably best to just go ahead and use the U.S. Route infobox.  My bad. -- NORTH talk 23:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a relatively simple way to get both sets to show? For example, if "type=US", have  display the US links in addition to whatever else it's supposed to display??? -- NORTH talk 23:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infoboxes for U.S. route bannered routes

message: Like above, numerous infoboxes are currently being used on articles for Interstate spurs and loops, mostly . Some time ago,  was made for this purpose; I reverted its usage, saying that it was excessive. We are now a few months removed from that, and I am willing to reopen discussion on its usage. However, it would make sense to use  only if  is used for U.S. route bannered routes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infoboxes for Interstate spurs and loops

message: Is anyone having difficulties with the latest SVG shields not ever loading. I'm finding this happening quite often in the California routes in particular.JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields/Design#Fixing non-rendering shields should help. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So is the problem with the browser or the actual SVG. The page you link to isn't too clear on that point. They just say to purge the image. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the actual SVG. What you have to do is click on the "blank" image and follow the image to the commons description page. When on that page, right-click the history tab and click (on Firefox) "Copy link location". (Not sure what the IE equivalent is anymore...) Paste the URL into your address bar, replacing "action=history" with "action=purge". Multiple page reloads may be necessary. Additionally, the shield then needs to be purged on the article page that it appears on as well. If that doesn't work, post what shields aren't displaying and I should be able to fix it. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Question: are you sure it's the latest shields that aren't rendering?  New shields should have no problem, particularly if they're made in Inkscape.  Old shields should be the ones that still occasionally have issues. -- NORTH talk 22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox shields 

message: See U.S. Route 29 - specifically, the U.S. 170 shield on that page. U.S. 170 no longer exists.
I've thought about it, and have come to the conclusion that I'm not a fan. Depending on the age of the road that got replaced, there's no proof that the route was ever signed in that manner. We should just leave the primary shields on the page. —Rob (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this opens up a whole can of worms...I don't have the time to get into it now (I have class), but I'll be back in a few hours.  I need a haircut, too.  All beside the point.  I have stuff to say, but I need to go.  --MPD T / C 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My opinion is that if the road was decommissioned or redesignated prior to the use of a particular shield design, then we shouldn't include the new shield on the page.  It doesn't make sense to do so.  That particular shield never appeared along side the roadway.  --Holderca1 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem I have with US 170 shield is that, from that era, the shield looked different than today.  If it was an old shield, I'd be okay with that.  Best example is that the PA shields were a different design in the 1920s.  --myselfalso 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think they're fine if they're included in a browse row (as the route identifier in the green box), but otherwise they should be removed. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: <edit conflict>If there are historical sources, old maps, books, newspapers, and magazines as examples, then we should include the old shield, especially on the discontinued roads.  For roads still in use, it would be reasonable to have a gallery for the history of their signage.  Vegaswikian 20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we shouldn't be including the modern shields if they were never used. However if we can get someone to make a version of the older style shield then I think it would be acceptable to include it. That said, does anyone know the exact year they switched to the newer shield (Florida and California excepted). I suspect some of the articles on completely discontinued routes could also benefit from having the older style shields on the pages. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where I stand on this.  On one hand, it could be useful to know that (part of) the route was once US 170, but at the same time, part of the route was also US 211, US etc etc etc, and this goes for a LOT of routes (including interstates: e.g. Interstate 76).  That means we'd have to add a lot of routes.  I'd have to say I disagree with using the shields unless the entire route was formerly that designation (like the Interstates).  That said, I'll set up my next comment below. --MPD T / C 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I almost deleted it when I added the heading which is now the target for the US 170 redirect.  Vegaswikian 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is out of place.  Unfortunately, this is a problem with both past and future routes; we have a shield just hanging there.  As I said above, if the entire route was formerly just one designation, then I feel we could use a shield.  If we did, we could look into having a parameter in the infobox for "former" or "future" designations.  Why not just take a step outside the box and do something like this, and just use shields like that and put it (smaller) in the infobox below the current shield.  For Interstates...well the current shields can stay I guess...but if so, we could just put "FORMER" where "INTERSTATE" is.  --MPD T / C 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work. I've taken to bolding the former routes in the history section, if the historic route is a redirect. There's no happy solution for routes that were historic... other than to make separate articles for them and link to all of the routes they're now a part of. Still not sure how I feel about the shields at all. —Rob (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting idea, but I can't say I like the "former" shield idea. Especially since that shield isn't even the former US shield but the California variant. I think using the old 1950's shield and just putting it in a thumbnail w/caption should be sufficient (assuming the most of or the entire route used to have the former designation). JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea, but US 29 is a bad example.  I mean, many of these routes are.  Because then not only do you have to list every route, but then you have to list from where the former routes existed.  Otherwise, you're insinuating that the entire length of US 29 was US 170 at one point.  Same with all the other historic sections of US 29.  Solve one problem, another comes up.  --MPD T / C 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we put in "NC-VA" as column 4? I'm trying to make the concept as at-a-glance as possible. —Rob (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can try it, why not.  Although we just keep adding more templates to an already crowded article.  --MPD T / C 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My original preferred alternative was to drop the shields altogether - this way the shields stay, but they're given some context, as opposed to floating in space. (Another alternative is included with this post.) Its mostly a look-and-feel deal, because 5 of those shields floating in space without context doesn't seem like a good idea. —Rob (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of old shields on current routes... 

message: Also, for what it's worth, the shield hanging out in space doesn't seem right to me. But I'm not sure what else I would do with it, except maybe put a caption listing the dates the road existed. —Rob (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost deleted it when I added the heading which is now the target for the US 170 redirect.  Vegaswikian 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is out of place.  Unfortunately, this is a problem with both past and future routes; we have a shield just hanging there.  As I said above, if the entire route was formerly just one designation, then I feel we could use a shield.  If we did, we could look into having a parameter in the infobox for "former" or "future" designations.  Why not just take a step outside the box and do something like this, and just use shields like that and put it (smaller) in the infobox below the current shield.  For Interstates...well the current shields can stay I guess...but if so, we could just put "FORMER" where "INTERSTATE" is.  --MPD T / C 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work. I've taken to bolding the former routes in the history section, if the historic route is a redirect. There's no happy solution for routes that were historic... other than to make separate articles for them and link to all of the routes they're now a part of. Still not sure how I feel about the shields at all. —Rob (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting idea, but I can't say I like the "former" shield idea. Especially since that shield isn't even the former US shield but the California variant. I think using the old 1950's shield and just putting it in a thumbnail w/caption should be sufficient (assuming the most of or the entire route used to have the former designation). JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of place? 

message: All right... I've tried out a "Historic routes" table on U.S. Route 29. It keeps the shield, but de-emphasizes it; it also just lists the name and the date, with the description of the historic route remaining in the text. Opinions? —Rob (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, but US 29 is a bad example.  I mean, many of these routes are.  Because then not only do you have to list every route, but then you have to list from where the former routes existed.  Otherwise, you're insinuating that the entire length of US 29 was US 170 at one point.  Same with all the other historic sections of US 29.  Solve one problem, another comes up.  --MPD T / C 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we put in "NC-VA" as column 4? I'm trying to make the concept as at-a-glance as possible. —Rob (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can try it, why not.  Although we just keep adding more templates to an already crowded article.  --MPD T / C 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My original preferred alternative was to drop the shields altogether - this way the shields stay, but they're given some context, as opposed to floating in space. (Another alternative is included with this post.) Its mostly a look-and-feel deal, because 5 of those shields floating in space without context doesn't seem like a good idea. —Rob (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic routes table? 

message: Holderca1 asked: "I wouldn't mind seeing some of our editors of the past all coming back, perhaps we can reach out to those that are still active on Wiki and see exactly why they left the project and what needs to be done to see them return."
Don't hold your breath waiting for me.  I'm still working on List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota, which is far less complete than the lists of highways.  Plus, the National Register of Historic Places project is more interesting, and there's never been an edit war over ambiguous names.  In fact, ambiguous names are par for the course there, since a given property may have had several owners or official names over the years.  Cadwallader C. Washburn, for example, called his building the Washburn "A" Mill, while the Minnesota Historical Society calls it the Mill City Museum.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We haven't had any issues with ambiguous names here since last summer. Everything has it's set name now if that's your only concern. I don't think we've had any naming disputes since last July. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 22:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to return, we will welcome you back. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's serious folks... we will welcome you back. Some more formally then others. ;) JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 00:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors of the past 

message: Greetings! I've noticed that, in attempting to follow what instructions are there, I found that the instructions are incredibly vague. For example, for the state column, nothing states whether to use the postal abbreviation or the state full name. Someone found my sandbox where I've been working on a junction list and made the changes and now things work, but that sort of thing needs to be outlined in the instructions better. Were the directions created to be incredibly vague to people not familiar with the project on purpose, or by accident? I'll add a note stating to use the postal abbreviations, but it might be worth while for someone more familiar with the syntax to go through and expand the instructions a bit. Thanks. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junction Table Instructions 

message: OK, it's been a week and nothing's happened. Since my method of distinguishing circular shields from elliptical shields irked some editors (the reasons for which IMHO were extremely weak), I'm staying out of this. Whatever happens, I hope that a set of shields isn't made solely for Kentucky - we don't need four redundant sets of shields lying around. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also wondering where the status is... -- NORTH talk 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status?

message: Anyone have any problems if I run a bot to convert  to ? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will 100% support converting to .  Seeing that lots of GA/FAs have this kind of a format, it could be a starting point for peer reviews and such, as well as standardizing the look of all USRD articles.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 03:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point? They both do the same thing, right? --Sable232 03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the surface, yes. However, the template makes the font size of the references smaller (helpful when the list of refs is very long) and adds the potential to display the refs in multiple columns if needed. As Krimpet said, there's nothing lost in the conversion, so we may as well be consistent with the FA and GAs produced by this project and convert. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good, there's nothing to lose from converting, and the added column formatting functionality is quite helpful for articles with lots of references. Krimpet (talk/review) 03:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a problem: it's a huge waste of server resources.  Much easier would be changing the default output of references to be small. —METS501 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that does not enable us to use columns, like we can in .  Also, every references list is different, with every one of them being of different size, so no.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As explained at WP:PERF, the developers have stated that site performance and server load is not an issue. And in this case in particular, from the standpoint of Wikimedia's huge server farm, a few extra templates on pages would be barely a blip. Krimpet (talk/review) 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the templates that are the problem, it's the (potentially) hundreds of thousands of articles that would need to be changed. —METS501 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: AVB and MartinBot don't make millions of edits per day!  Usually, only one is running, and that equates to just over 2000 edits per day (at a guess). Martinp23 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop pulling the WP:PERF thing on me.  I've read it, I know it all, and I know enough to know that 100,000 edits which don't change anything is a waste of resources.  Bots are different than ordinary policy with regard to technical measures.  Bring it up on the talk page of the stylesheet if you want the default ref tag to be small refrences. —METS501 (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the 100,000 number come from?  There are less than 7,000 road articles.  --Holderca1 16:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [edit conflict]Exactly.  Stop pulling over here and starting to become highly bureaucratical over on the USRD talk page.  There is no such policy about wasting server resources, and in fact, as Krimpet pointed out, it's just a blip.  Wikimedia has to handle millions of edits/uploads/blocks/deletes every second, on every Wikimedia wiki, so it's impractical to say that converting to  is wasting server resources.   If you want to keep whining about this, you may whine to brion over on IRC or somewhere if you want to complain about server resources.  This discussion was just about standardizing the look of the Highways department.  This is not about changing the stylesheet so that every Wikipedia article's references are small.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 16:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would rather me not participate in the discussion, allow you to reach consensus, and then turn down approval for the bot, that's fine with me.  But really, I'd much prefer to try and reach an acceptable agreement to everyone and then we can get the bot approved. —METS501 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already consensus.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mets has stepped in here as a memeber of the Bot Approvals Group - an office on Wikipedia which approves bots (or doesn't) based on their merits and technical considerations.  Mets is actually doing more than most by coming here and helping the discussion by putting across the BAG's opinion.  Note that, without BAG approval, the bot will not run, so it's advisable that you all listen to Mets' valid concerns and try to work with them, rather than working around Mets and biting his head off at every corner.  A bit of good faith would certainly not go amiss here. Martinp23 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems like he only came in and said that we can't do it.  That in itself is not a valid concern, since he enforced it kind of gruffly, without looking at our strong consensus already present.  I'm sorry, but converting to  is necessary, because USRD is in a state of trash, and that there are 6688 articles in USRD total.  2/3 of those articles have to be standardized, since they are a complete mess.  Also about reflist, 99% of GAs/FAs use it or something similar to it.  It doesn't matter how many refs there are, see DNA and (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction for examples of an article that has a gazillion refs, and another one which only has 14.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter how he presented the issues, it's Mets' job to find that there is a need for, and a consensus for, the changes.  The inclusion of one template most certainly won't fix the mess that USRD is apparently in, and if you're seeking standardisations, then it would surely be easier to go ofor the tried and tested method.  The pint about GA/FAs is completely irrelevant, as it isn't reflsit which has had the articles promoted (and it probably has served no purpose at all in the eyes of the reviewer!). In any case, the BRFA has now been declined by another member of BAG. Martinp23 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I changed all the ones on WP:ILSR and used AWB to do it; it's not a problem. Some people say that it makes the references harder to read, but as long as the font size can be changed on a per-browser setting, I don't really have a problem with it. —Rob (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I plan on changing every PA route with my bot once I get that feature approved.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 16:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support the idea of cleaning up and converting reference sections to  and do so myself when I edit an article.  Also - Mets501 is making a mountain out of a molehill here when he worries about extra edits.  If users want to do this (as long as they don't clog up the system that is) let them. -- master_sonTalk -  Edits 18:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mets' mountain is that, from the molehill of USRD doing the conversion, we could well end up with the rest of Wikipedia trying to conform by making hundreds of thousands of edits to the article space to bring their references into line.  In this case, a style sheet change is far more appropriate, for obvious reasons!  The tranclusion of  everywhere then poses another huge problem (even if only used on USRD) - re-caching in the event of a change to a template (and the devs do go mad when this happens - they took a whole wiki down at one point due to this).  Also, there is the issue of the downsides of using reflist - in articles with few refs, it just makes things harder to read and work with, and is a pointless addition.  Any bot would have to take account of this.  Martinp23 19:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.  Kingboyk has gone ahead and denied the bot; his, mine, and Martinp23's objections show that I'm not the only one opposing this. —METS501 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll admit that when I replied regarding WP:PERF, I did not realize you were part of the bots committee; sorry, I trust that you guys know what you are talking about. Krimpet (talk/review) 02:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm lost, what does this have to do with a bot?  --Holderca1 18:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to tool my bot to change  to , but Rschen's bot request to do this failed.  Now that the bot request has failed, I think we should use  on new articles from now on.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the question simply that it is, not a good idea to have a bot do this for the sake of doing it? Or, its bad for any bot to do this while making other updates to the same articles?  Vegaswikian 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mets501 said that they're a waste of server resources, but it's generally not so.  That was the concern that led to the bot request being failed.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I thought we were discussing whether to use  or  in the articles.  I thought he was against using a bunch of templates on the pages.  I had no idea it was a bot he was against.  --Holderca1 00:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Another question about Mississippi, and then I'll start actually working on it, I swear!
What's the consensus for dealing with reference routes (i.e. NY's 900s, CT's 400+, Mississippi's 700+)?  Am I correct in thinking that there should be a separate list, and they should be kept out of the browse?  (For example, the previous route for MS 1 would be MS 621, not MS 994?) -- NORTH talk 07:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my experience (with Iowa's 900 series) I would leave them off the browse and they would usually be a redirect to the route being referenced - if applicable. -- master_sonTalk -  Edits 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference routes 

message: Carroll county Road M-68, OCO Road (map); it's probably notable as part of the old Omaha Cut-Off, apparently an auto trail from Arcadia to Omaha via Manning, Irwin, and Kirkman. (That doesn't seem like much of a cut-off to me, but maybe it was back in the day.) --NE2 11:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs cleanup 

message: Template: has 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. — NE2 06:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we trying to delete this one again? It seems to continue to serve a purpose IMHO. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:ADHS}} 

message: I added some old history to History_of_road_transport#United_States_of_America.  More is needed on the development of funding, policies, and design.   I suggest creation of an article for the history of U.S. roads with much of this information, and links to the specialized existing articles.  Some of the existing articles have stub History sections which could link back to this general history so as to provide a more complete description of the history. (SEWilco 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of US Roads 

message: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 4#Template:CleanupMNSR. I noticed the templates haven't been tagged with  yet, so thought the Project should become aware of this. –Pomte 02:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the thought on combining these all into one template with subpages, just like ? --Holderca1 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. No need for them to all be unique per project. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 17:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not set entirely against it, but the coding behind this would be a disaster. If done right in a perfect world, no subpages would be necessary and only parameters and parser functions would be needed. The problems are that (1) each state calls their state highways different things and (2) the conventions for each state's categories vary. Yes, subpages would cover both issues, but is the effort worth it in the end? I don't believe it is, personally. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup templates nominated for deletion 

message: There may be a problem with the new, pattern-accurate Kansas shields. See :commons:User talk:Cohesion. I'd like others' input. —Scott5114↗ 18:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kansas shield problem 

message: Ok, so with the exit list on the MOS, this creates a problem.  As User:Matt Yeager just edited, this is for all road articles across Wikipedia now.  That said...the guide right now really only applies to the United States.  I'll start working on making it more international.  I'll get a general guideline together for Canada and some part of Europe.  It's no rush, and we've got a lot on our plate right now, so I'll be working on this for a bit.  But a heads up.  --MPD T / C 22:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be ok to leave it as it is now until somebody complains. But this is definitely something should be addressed in the future. --Polaron | Talk 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Polaron.  Leave it as is, but don't go out of your way to implement it to international roads.  And if anyone complains, address it then. -- NORTH talk 23:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exit list 

message: The month of May is closing in and we don't have any votes to decide the FA for PASH. Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania State Highways/FA/Recommend to vote, thank you. -- JA10 T · C 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PASH|PASH]] FA for May 

message: First, the exit list guide has been moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists), due to some users taking issue to having a guideline in WikiProject space.  All old shortcuts and redirects still work, as well as a new simpler one: WP:ELG.
Second an official IRC meeting will take place this Friday at 9PM ET/6 PT.  Participation is, of course, voluntary, and all users are welcome.  Several topics are on the docket:
*Newsletter reorganization
*Article Improvement Drive
*WT:USRD#Overstandardization
*WT:USRD#County highways
Of course, anything else is open to discussion as well.  Hope to see you there! -- NORTH talk 17:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleanup templates? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. -- NORTH talk 23:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this IRC thing? If you're going to discuss CR's can it be put off or done on wikipedia? Because I can't attend a Friday night meeting, I have a life outside wiki and am generally in rush hour traffic at 6 PM PST. And I'm obviously very invested in county routes, at least California's extensive system of routes. Gateman1997 06:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: California's county routes are probably not "threatened", being a fairly limited system numbered at the state level. A similar system is New Jersey's 500-series routes. On the other hand, in most states, there are at least 50 or so routes  - and sometimes many more - per county, with no network of "more major" routes among them. Of course there is nothing wrong with an article about a major route like that, but many county routes are very minor roads. --NE2 07:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, keep in mind that no decisions are going to be made on IRC.  Likely we'll draft a solution and then present it here.  For the most part, that solution will reflect what's already been discussed on-wiki.  For instance, if you look above, there's already a weak consensus that individual county routes aren't notable, and should be put in a list instead.  However, like NE2 said, California's system may be an exception to this. -- NORTH talk 18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's likely the meeting will extend a few hours after that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as I said, rush hour. That and I've no idea what IRC is. You're all speaking Sweedish when mentioning it as far as I know. And as long as NJ, WI, and CA County Routes aren't threatened then I've no problem with imposing a few standards on the other 47 states. Most states don't have the larger state defined network of actual "highways" that these 3 have. Gateman1997 16:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies about that... in hindsight I should have stated that it was too late to change the meeting time, and there was little we could do. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of notes 

message: Okay. I can barely read the IRC discussion, but it looks as though non-notable county roads go in a list, correct?
Now, it looks as though Minnesota is going to be fairly simple in terms of county roads. They are done independently by each county, and the only real distinction is for CSAHs.
I've started a list in my userspace for Ramsey (figure I'll start with a small map) and that'll serve as a test mule for formatting. Now, the issue with these is the use of shields. First, all we have for generic county shields are the PNGs I made. I can try next weekend to have someone get my POS Apple computer to run Inkscape, and if it works I'll make the SVGs myself. (I'm going to do only generic shields, so "COUNTY" will be on top.) Second, MN has a unique setup with the type of shield used. In some counties (mostly urban) the blue pentagon is always used. In others, the pentagon is used for CSAHs while the white square is used for the others. Some appear to still be using the white square for all roads. The simplest way to determine it is through personal observation, otherwise a telephone call to the county might work (but I wouldn't count on finding anyone that knows). A third issue is how to deal with noncontiguous county roads. This may be an issue unique to Ramsey County though, as the lettered county roads usually have the same number along every segment. --Sable232 01:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on County Roads 

message: Please see WT:USRD/NEWS. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New newsletter discussion 

message: Check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Highways#Road_diagram_icons.  One of my sandboxes (User:MPD01605/Roads/Work) has an example.  It has potential in some way.  --MPD T / C 01:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it. It might fit in an exit list or junction list, for the states that use those, but I don't understand why it would be on the right side, like an infobox. --NE2 02:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the current rail route diagram box for the example because it would be pointless to make all these new templates and new images for something that might not be used (the existing template is aligned right).  I could see it used in place of an exit list/junction list, but not widely used in North America for roads.  It's a decent size though and would need a lot of modding for roads, and would be good for a route with a lot of text.  But like I mentioned on the other talk page, we under US Roads have our system pretty much in place.  But I don't know I just figure for those who don't watch WP:HWY, that I'd bring it up here.  --MPD T / C 02:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: looks too much like its a subway line ;)  Anyway, it might be useful for depicting interchanges and such - if a legend is provided, but I think it looks like too much.  Exit lists do the job well anyway.  -- master_sonTalk -  Edits 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: On an entirely different topic, just something I noticed while looking at that sandbox.  A lot of the Iowa shields you uploaded (I think it's all the 900's) have a black square in the upper left corner. :-( -- NORTH talk 06:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that program you guys referred me to did that.  I need to re-path every shield from about 825 up to 999.  Haven't had the time.  That's also why I haven't totally replaced the old PNGs I made.  Indeed a :-(  --MPD T / C 06:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that you accidentally had an extra blank text path somewhere.  I had the same thing happen to me when I first started on Louisiana shields, and it was without using Commonist.  It just appeared that it was cuz the black rectangle only appears after uploading, even if it's done manually. -- NORTH talk 06:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like something that happened to me on the SD sheilds - I had an extra text object in there and it shows as a block if not converted to path. -- master_sonTalk -  Edits 12:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoa. Crazy list. I'll think about whether I like that or not. :) I have wanted diagrams demonstrating in a simple figure what would normally take 50-100 words to describe. See I-290 (IL) exits 7, 13, and 15. —Rob (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Road diagrams 

message: I see that there are several people who seem to be taking a leadership role, and that's good.  However, I see things becoming more and more bureaucratic.  We have to follow this, this, this and this.  Screw what the state WP says, we must go with USRD.  That isn't right.  I don't see USRD as the master project.  I see USRD as the parent - but only in the sense that it is a larger demographic.  But what is the point of having separate WikiProjects if they all have to follow under USRD?  Why not merge the WPs together under USRD, and call them all subProjects?  We might as well, we're practically already there.  --myselfalso 21:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's the point, people don't want that unless I'm mistaken. States shouldn't have to conform to each other identically if there is consensus for a different system at the state level. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 21:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the mergeto tag placed on the PASH page.  This should not happen.  According to Wikipedia:WikiProject reform, WP:HWY is a tier 0 project, USRD is a tier 1, and PASH is tier 2.  Yes, we should consider USRD and HWY parents.  Based on continuous discussion from NORTH and others, we should get back to regular wiki editing, and cut this WP:POINT idiocy, as rschen said below.  PASH and others do not have to follow USRD completely (or mostly in this case)—just one or two aspects should be the same (except the stuff established at WP:USRD/INNA).  I'm sorry if I had upset anyone in any way—we just have to sort out our differences and move on. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 22:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Per V60. I donot support the merge. Diffirent states have separate regulations they all don't have to follow WP:USRD. -- JA10 T · C 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break 1