Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 10

message: Since this isn't gaining traction, here's a new proposal:
* Delete the Infoboxes and Navigation/Infobox page
Please comment.  --Son (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  --Son (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 2

message: County Route E2 (California) --NE2 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion tag 

message: This was sort of suggested by Newyorkbrad at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/1/2). How about, for the states with projects that wish to discard roads that are not currently state highways, having a new parameter, like state=OK|system=SH, and categorize these not only in Oklahoma road transport but also Oklahoma state highway articles. If the system=SH is not present, it only uses the former category. I haven't thought through all the details, but it might work. --NE2 04:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense.  I have to say though, I don't fully (read: at all) understand the original issue.  But from a fresh perspective, I don't see why this is a problem and support this.  By the way, Happy New Year, people. --MPD T / C 05:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this require making a redundant set of categories (e.g. "Oklahoma road transport" vs "Oklahoma state highways")? (Also, note the bar in Oklahoma is that it was ever part of the state highway system, not merely "currently"; we do have one article on a former route.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not redundant if people want to have a restricted one. --NE2 08:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait...what would be the point of the old ones then? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To categorize consistently across the states, and let people know what project they can go to for help. --NE2 17:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Because people at each project want to define "state highway" differently based on what they're interested in. --NE2 23:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How would this be practical for WP:USRD?  Which cats would the editorial bot go through?  Would there be two tables (for the SH and transport cats) on the Assessment page?  --Son (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it would go through both. You guys can set up the assessment page however you want. --NE2 23:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My last question (for the moment :-) )... how is this practical for the project?  --Son (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It allows subproject members to choose a scope that will let them get their stats up while keeping the articles they dump categorized. --NE2 23:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What sort of articles would this be for? (And if a project doesn't want to cover certain articles, what would be the use in directing people there for help?) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some California people may not want to cover certain articles, but I would still help anyone who asks on the project talk page. --NE2 00:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't you use  to point them to your talk page instead? And if it were an auto trail (I assume this is why you're proposing this), couldn't they ask instead at the Auto Trails task force page? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just auto trails, but other articles like Lake Shore Drive and Old Plank Road. --NE2 01:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: People can ask for help for Lake Shore Drive at WP:USST. Not sure what could be done for the Old Plank Road. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lake Shore Drive is mostly a freeway - I don't think USST would be able to do much. --NE2 03:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I overlooked that. Freeways should definitely be a part of the Illinois project and USRD.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LSD was one of Lpangelrob's examples of a road that should be in USST. If freeways are to be an exception, how about Lloyd Expressway? --NE2 09:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh, that's borderline. Since it has interchanges, it is more likely to need USRD attention the form of mileposts and what not. What I have a problem with including in USRD is articles on otherwise normal city streets that just happen to carry part of a numbered route at some point in time.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "urban boulevards" like West Side Highway? Where do you draw the line? --NE2 10:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why above I was proposing the scope say "city streets don't belong here", so that only at-grade, normal city streets are removed from USRD, like Broad Street (Philadelphia). Having the PA 611 designation apparently isn't the important thing about the street, as it's only mentioned once in the main body of the article. (And besides, it isn't - the Broad Street article rightly focuses on local impact of the street, and its function as part of PA 611 should be covered in the highway's article.) West Side Highway was at one point apparently an elevated freeway thingy or something, so we should probably keep it in USRD. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: West Side Elevated Highway is about that. --NE2 21:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the first image in the article, part of it still is elevated freeway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess... it's more of a viaduct over railroad tracks though, and less of a freeway than Wacker Drive. --NE2 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never been to New York so I wouldn't know. The best thing to do in a situation like this would be to consult WP:NYSR to see if it should be included. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What if members of one state project want to include the article but those in another state don't? --NE2 00:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Create a country-wide standard.  Get contributors from every project to step in and create a country-wide standard for inclusion.  And if the result is some kind of no consensus, then the default can be the above proposed idea of having an additional set of cats.  --Son (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If members of one state project (say Montana) want it and another project (say Idaho) doesn't, include it in Montana without bothering Idaho with it. It'll still be in USRD, but if anyone at USRD has a problem with it, they can talk to the Montana project about it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible project box tweak 

message: I'm not a fan of bureaucracy, but I'm going to ask anyway: does something have to go through A-class review to be promoted, or can it just be promoted like  and if anyone disagrees they'll demote it? --NE2 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, A-Class is reserved for articles which are near featured article status.  They should be B or GA class, and I would not give an article A class without having at least one 2nd opinion.   — master sonT - C 04:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an A-class review page for USRD.  --Son (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is.  Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review --Son (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) The current A-Class system was derived from ones already in place at other WikiProjects and so far I believe it's worked well here. I also echo Master_son's thoughts in that A-Class is reserved for articles that are "at the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status" and that it should be a rating assigned based on the comments of multiple editors. Another thought: it's the 2nd highest rating in the scale, between GA and FA. GA requires another editor to look at the article before promoting it; FA requires a discussion. The A-Class review process is intended to be a blend of both, which is appropriate considering its location on the scale. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with this, in spite of the fact that now it takes no less than 3 reviews (GA, A, FA, and perhaps a fourth or fifth, if you count peer reviews) to get to FA status. The more sets of eyes, the better. That said, there only seem to be four sets of eyes at FAC for road articles. Maybe because of the holiday season. —Rob (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you don't necessarily have to go in order, you can run a B-class article through FA if you want, or go from GA to FA without going through A, but doing the intermediate steps helps catch things so you don't fail a FAC because of some stupid little error. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-class? 

message: Just this evening, I went and compared a few different articles on State Routes in Cali, and noticed the following potential for improvement; there seems to be no consensus ever reached on overall structure. For instance, the "State Law" section of each California State Route article. On some, it resides towards the bottom of the page. On others, it's been placed higher up. (Please see CA SR 1 and SR 99 for the differences.
In the interest of uniformity across the project, at least WP:CASH, what I'm proposing is this; A discussion to reach consensus on the article's section layout, or simply put, "what goes where". Edit Centric (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't be a state law section; anything relevant belongs in the infobox or introduction. --NE2 09:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there would be no need for templates like  and . In my opinion these are redundant also. — master sonT - C 18:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These are needed as they specifically designate which routes are in the two classifications. The state law section should remain; this was discussed ages ago at WT:CASH. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussed, and highly controversial. :-D The general vibe I've gotten on Wikipedia as a whole is that short, stubbish chunks of sentences and sections are discouraged, and that such things should be translated into prose or relegated to footnotes. I don't think WP:USR people would have a problem with the situation as is, but it's sure to come up in any FAC discussion regarding WP:CASH articles. —Rob (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Put a parameter in the infobox for them(the template material).  The section is blantantly redundant to the parameter in the infobox for the law.  Rob brings up a good point. — master sonT - C 19:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of linking to the law, why not just quote it, like on Utah State Route 32? That way it's less of a stubbish section.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point? We already have all the information that's in it, and we say it in our own words. --NE2 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that needs to be quoted word-for-word. It's a source (and an important one) but the only reason for quoting/identifying the law I can think of is in comparing it (or contrasting it) with the modern-day route. And even then, any changes to the route would ideally require a second source. —Rob (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, we already have something similar to that at WP:USRD/MOS. I think it's linked somewhere on the main page but it should go in the green box somewhere probably. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it is in the "green box" *cough* the link that is ;)  — master sonT - C 12:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. :P —Idiot5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree with Master_son - the only thing of some note is that the history and route description section order is somewhat negotiable. I can't quite find the diff where that was mentioned, but I didn't come up with it out of thin air. :-) —Rob (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall article structure - WP:CASH specific, but applies project-wide 

message: Please add
*American Geographical Society Library Digital Map Collection
to the "Historic maps and routings" section. Thank you. --NE2 09:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Page protection has been lifted. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Why is this page protected?
Anyways, I was going to remove the "Articles" section on WP:USRD because if I wanted a portal, I'd go to P:USRD. Or I would only keep the links to the categories for each class. —Rob (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An edit war came up. You could probably go to WP:RPP to get it unprotected - I'd do it myself but I already took crap for protecting it (see my talk...) --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It also protects the page from an editor from disrupting the page while (yet another) RFC goes on. Thanks Rschen.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Page protection was lifted by the order of the Arbitration Committee. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "Articles" section on [[WP:USRD]] 

message: I noticed NE2 merged New Mexico State Road 333 into U.S. Route 66 in New Mexico. I understand why he did this, being essentially the same road and all, but I think that we should put more emphasis on the current route, considering U.S. 66 has been decommissioned. (He once attempted merging Oklahoma State Highway 66 into the respective U.S. 66 article but we managed to resolve that.) NM-333 has termini different from that of U.S. 66 in NM and probably a little bit of history of its own as well. I'd like to know what others think about this merge. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If a merge is to happen - it should be the other way around - with a mention of what the route was in the history.  However this make more sense here - seeing that most of the old road was replaced with I-40 (through the mountains it was most efficient to build the Interstate on the same right of way as the old route)  I favor this move.  — master sonT - C 21:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging current SHs with former routes 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 605 (Washington). --Polaron | Talk 19:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion debate I-605 (Washington) 

message: This is just a list of every article that has a map, and doesn't seem useful. --NE2 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does [[:Category:U.S. Roads project maps task force articles]] exist? 

message: There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#References for geographical features on the use of references for geographical information, for example with road descriptions. Comments would be appreciated. --Para (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for geographical features 

message: Given that WP:USRD is back in arbitration, I have decided to return to Wikipedia. That being said, I do not plan on participating in the arbitration case, since while I've had past dealings with NE2 (both positive and negative), I am blissfully unaware of what has gone on in my absense and what led directly to the case. Rather, while the rest of you folks participate in the arbitration case, I plan on picking up the pieces you've left behind. I will follow whatever guidelines have been determined with regards to junction lists and the like in my absense, and the last thing I want to do is reopen any sore wounds. In fact, the reason I have returned is to make sure old wounds stay closed, and to stop any more wounds from opening in the future.
I don't know how often I'll be on here, and due to various constraints I will not be on IRC, so I make no promises on what I will do or when I will do it.  I just figured that you might like to know that I'm around keeping an eye on the proceedings. -- NORTH talk 09:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to have you back. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back Northenglish. Its been a long time since I've seen you here. It certainly was a surprise.Mitch32contribs 14:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NORTH!!!!!!!!!!!! --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Good to see you around mate!  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcoming myself back 

message: I propose the creation of a subpage of USRD to list all our articles that made DYK. Any thoughts? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out WP:USRD/DYK. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK 

message: I am proposing the repromotion of the project at WT:USRD/SUB. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utah project promotion 

message: I am proposing the demotion of this project at WT:USRD/SUB. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CACR]] 

message: I wasn't sure whether to take this to the Assessment subproject, or Peer review, plus I wanted it to reach a somewhat larger audience, so here it lies.
I'm somewhat disappointed that the article was passed as a Good Article during my absence.  It was expanded, and deservedly so, but a lot of the concerns I raised when it was first nominated were never addressed.  As my first action back, I've now belatedly addressed them.
Also, during the most recent nomination, the reviewer (not a member of USRD as far as I know) promoted the article to A-class.  After I'd already started posting this message, I noticed that Mitchazenia demoted it back to B-class, then to GA-class once it passed.  Nevertheless, I'd like to see it go through the proper assessment procedure by someone knowledgeable about our criteria (i.e. not me).  Who knows, maybe it is A-class?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northenglish (talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I suppose I'm a bit rusty with my posting skills. :-) -- NORTH talk 15:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: List it as an A Class Review - follow the instructions noted on the page in the link.   — master sonT - C 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good plan. Done. -- NORTH talk 18:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the GA review process isn't the best thing in the world. I've found it to be wildly inconsistent, whether it be for the time it takes (sometimes it's a week, others a few months) or the standards of the reviewer. I've seen a lot of articles passed lately that I personally wouldn't consider Good Articles. OTOH, our ACR process is pretty solid. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[New Jersey Route 18]] 

message: Please do comment at its talk page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  We have a situation on [[Button copy]] 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Parkway/Beaver Island Parkway --NE2 21:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 4 (Monmouth County, New Jersey) --Mitch32contribs 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another deletion discussion 

message: Can we please find a way to do away with the major cities boxes? They prevent adding images to the route description section... like on U.S. Route 59, where I had to add the image very far down the page in a section it doesn't really fit well with. I think it's a problem.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only conceivable way would be to merge them into ; however, that really doesn't fix the problem because the long single infobox would still mess up image placement. On a related note, I'd like to consolidate the WP:NYSR community boxes into ; however, the "cities=" parameter doesn't work for this purpose since nine times out of ten the locations listed in the box aren't cities, much less major cities (which is what the resulting row reads). --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could just throw the list out the window down into the street below, and run it over with several cars and a tricycle. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear God, that's a long list of cities. I wouldn't be opposed to eliminating it for sizes > 10. (I still insist the concept holds some value, but agree it needs to be balanced with readability.)  —Rob (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For a similarly appalling list, see U.S. Route 70. I pared that one down by a lot, I think to cities of 10,000 pop or greater, but the route is so long there's a ton of those. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: hmm - I'd be concerned about some people thinking that the major cities must be listed somewhere, but I agree with NE2's philosophy here, the list is redundant (whether separate or in the infobox)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master son (talk • contribs) 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Isn't the major cities or Communities box (see Pennsylvania Route 39) just redundant to the major junctions guide/ELG or the route description?  I'd advocate getting rid of both the major cities and communities boxes because of redundancy.  --Son (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is rather redundant. I'd be fine with just getting rid of the city list boxes. - Algorerhythms (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, the box makes more sense for Interstates, because those have well-defined control cities, so the box doesn't have too many entries. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good compromise.  For main interstate articles, have a list of the control cities, and only have major city lists on state-by-state articles so that they're more manageable. -- NORTH talk 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this is still problematic; for instance on Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania we'll have a lot of rather minor places, but on others we'll have two major cities, neither of which is in the state. Are control cities really encyclopedic anyway, when they depend much more on the state's wishes than what's actually a major city? --NE2 20:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we Hard limit to control cities only on the Interstates.  — master sonT - C 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Addendum: this would be true for State Detail - for overall pages (that have state-details) eliminate them altogether.  — master sonT - C 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) Well, we'll have to use discretion. Control cities IMO are encyclopaedic. But for example, on I-66 we have Washington (DC) and Strasburg, but Front Royal is also listed on signage, so that would be included but not bolded, per the box. Three cities is no big deal. I think most Interstates are fine as they are. I suggest we focus on one thing right now: the use of the cities box in US routes, get that resolved, and then we can work on Interstates. Deal? --MPD T / C 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Addendum: even though I suggested saving this for later, an overall box on the main article is necessary (I like to see everything total-route-specific on one page.  But state-detail articles would include more "major" cities. --MPD T / C 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually what I'm saying applies to control cities - Pennsylvania has ten relatively small official control cities on I-80, while New Jersey has none (unless you count Delaware Water Gap) and Illinois has only one (Chicago, which isn't actually on I-80). --NE2 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But they're still defined as control cities by AASHTO. It's not our place to make value judgments on control cities. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole thread is making value judgments on the major cities box, and we can certainly decide whether to use it for control cities or not. --NE2 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I concur that we are making value judgements here.  If there are no cities on a S-D page for interstates because of the lack of control cities, so be it.  — master sonT - C 22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So here's an idea.  Why not some simple solution like what we have with the intersection list in the infobox?  The ten most major cities go on the list. -- NORTH talk 00:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of those cities are hopefully in the infobox, making the city list kind of redundant. --NE2 00:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The organization hasn't really "blessed" those towns as important; it's taken requests from the state, and - at least in the case of I-80 in Pennsylvania - rubber-stamped them. Control cities are also not always intended to be important towns, but sometimes simply junctions. And some are other roads, like I-84 on western I-86 (eastern I-86 is too new for us to have information) and I-15 on I-70. Control cities are simply inconsistent between states, and not even always followed by the states (see the green entries in ). --NE2 00:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But a DOT still had to pick that city for submission to AASHTO...and how do you know that it was simply rubber-stamped? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's an AASHTO list, which underscores the fact that they're generally up to the states. We don't even have an updated list; the one we use is from 2001 (and is probably technically a copyright violation, so could go down at any time). --NE2 01:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought I'd point out that NCDOT links to that same list. --MPD T / C 01:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that there's a set list, regardless of who makes it. On another note, I find it surprising that DOTs link to that list instead of something that some people here would consider more official. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Heh... that's pretty weird. I guess the only alternative would be having it scanned on their intranet, since AASHTO doesn't have it online. --NE2 01:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly can't really see the Control Cities being on the articles now if they're not properly sourced.  — master sonT - C 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are sourced: The 2001 edition of List of Control Cities for Use in Guide Signs on Interstate Highways, which is published by AASHTO in a larger text.  Someone was nice enough to put it online; it's no different than citing a book.  --MPD T / C 04:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, it's Guidelines for the Selection of Supplemental Guide Signs for Traffic Generators Adjacent to Freeways, 4th Edition, Single User Digital Publication.  I'm in the process of obtaining it now. --MPD T / C 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have it.  Here's proof.  I'm afraid to make copies of it.  That adelphia list is correct, as far as I can see.  --MPD T / C 04:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MoDOT has a copy of the control cities for the interstates that pass through Missouri at their Engineering Policy wiki. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If the FHWA has an identical copy of the list under their own banner, it wouldn't be subject to copyright, being an entity of the federal government and all. :-) —Rob (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If control cities are worth mentioning, we can mention them in the text. In fact, on something like I-80 in Pennsylvania, it might be better to mention them with a sentence about how there are no major cities on I-80. --NE2 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly would you propose doing that? Control cities are probably not conducive to being written about in prose form, so we'd probably have to go back to the bulleted list in its own section. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most routes only have a few. In the case of I-80, something like "I-80 serves sparsely populated areas of northern Pennsylvania, yet has been assigned many control cities: Sharon, Du Bois, ..." --NE2 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose that.  I honestly don't think we'll get consensus on the Interstates, so I think we should focus on the US and state routes at the moment and get those out of the way. --MPD T / C 21:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. Well, I haven't really seen any objection to the idea of removing the box for U.S. routes, so...speak now or hold your peace for a few months or so I guess? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cities box 

message: *Proposal 1: B-Class is an article with a decent (at least 50-75% of the information to make an adequate article) Route description, History, and some form of junction list. B+ class is articles that could go to GA (similar to how A class is to FA).
*Proposal 2: B-Class is an article with complete Route description, History, and some form of junction list. However, if a section is missing, it would still be B class. B+ class would have all 3 sections.
Please indicate what you support below. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you put "decent route description" for 1 but "complete route description" for 2. And wasn't the point of adding B+ that we'd be using the default criteria for B? Or would we still be clarifying all the classes? I don't think I agree with either of those proposals; something with one sentence of "decent" description, one sentence of history, and a junction list shouldn't usually be B, but on the other hand does M-185 really need a junction list? Does Southern California freeways need a standard route description? Why are we polling anyway? We had a decent discussion going. --NE2 06:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspected I didn't fully understand your position. Apparently that was correct. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a position per se. I was using something stricter than both proposals, with a complete route description and a relatively complete history, but was reverted in the case of State Route 15 and told to read the criteria. I did, but didn't see how they specified what anyone was using. So I took it here in the hope that we'd be able to decide whether we want to be stricter than the standard. --NE2 06:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So your position is that the standards are too vague right now? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you insist that everyone must have a position on everything at all times, yes. --NE2 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Should we just close this poll and say that we're going to just clarify everything? (needs all 3 sections, decent size for B, and no B+)? If B+ gets added by the bot I don't have a problem with adding it later. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What would California State Route 15 fall under then? With such a short history I can only see it being B if we have a B+ or work on getting GAs through more quickly. --NE2 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: B since it has the three sections...  and that is irrelevant to whether we have a B+ or get GAs through more quickly. Start is for articles missing 1 section, Stub is for articles missing 2 or more. (You say you have no opinion about the matter, and now you're opposing this...) --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that we need some way to separate articles with very short sections from fully-fleshed-out articles. --NE2 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we all know what the difference between a short section and a more complete one is. We already have enough guidelines and criteria and general crap in the project subpages, do we really need this too? By saying "complete" when I posted to your talk page about the B-class criteria, I meant reasonably complete, as in not just a sentence stating when it was commissioned. I didn't mean it was complete to the point that there was nothing else to add to it. Read WP:WIP. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying we have to define what complete is; I'm saying that we should have a class that shows that everything is mostly complete. SR 15 isn't there. --NE2 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's A-Class... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A requires a good deal of process, and is "almost-FA". I'm thinking of "almost-GA". --NE2 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend just giving the article in question the little bit of extra oomph to get it to GA. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we set up something so we don't have to wait a month for a GA reviewer to get around to the article? --NE2 00:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that sitting in queue for a month is frustrating, but there's not really anything that we can do about it, other than pitching in and reviewing articles to clear the backlogs. (I do think that might be something you might be good at, NE2.) WikiProjects approving articles as GA in-house is discouraged at WP:Reviewing good articles. I really don't want to add any more classes unless you could persuade WP1.0 to adopt it as an official class so that the bot can handle it like normal. Having oddball classes also makes it harder to compare how USRD is doing to other projects and Wikipedia in general. (Which is actually the original reason I invented the WikiWork stats. Please note that merely because I mentioned WikiWork doesn't mean that I have a hidden agenda to prevent the creation of a new class because it would be bad for WikiWork or something like that.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You're supposed to do a writeup, not just fail it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the talk page? --NE2 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and more than the one sentence - you have to examine the whole article. Also, for something as minor as finding one source, you place a hold on it; you don't fail it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I did. --NE2 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have to go through the GA criteria and say where it is good and where it is not. Furthermore, you don;t fail an article over RS; you place a hold and wait 7 days. If it still is not reliably sourced then, that is when you fail it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "The process of promoting Good Articles is intentionally unbureaucratic." --NE2 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  There, or on a subpage of your userpage -- that's what I've seen done on prior GAN's. A writeup typically includes every section detailed out, the reasons why it was declined, what needs to be done, etc.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reviewers should ... probably avoid reviewing articles that belong to WikiProjects they are active members of." So says WP:Reviewing good articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they're likely to be biased. I don't believe my reviews were biased; in fact I know more about what's a reliable source for highways than the average non-USRD reviewer. --NE2 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are an exception to the rule? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an exception to the guideline that says "probably", yes. Add that to your arbcom evidence. --NE2 02:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will, once I finish updating stats. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: I am proposing the renovation of this template. My thoughts are to reduce the font size of the template and to remove the hide / show features. However, only the headings that actually have content will show. After this, the West and East templates would no longer be necessary. Are there any objections? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Project U.S. Roads]] 

message: I propose starting a collection of USRD essays - just advice from some editors of the project. In no way would these be official or anything. It would be similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays. Any thoughts? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Scott5114/Highway notability FAQ —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay proposal 

message: commons:Category talk:Road signs in the United States#Roads/Road signs —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons cat discussion 

message: To all USRD and state highway project editors,
I am aware that there has been much stress at USRD lately due to the arbitration. Many users have shown signs of stress and have contemplated or have left USRD.
I am asking that we try to hold USRD together. Not the project, but the community of users that edit the road articles. I am aware that there are many differences and bad feelings over the events that have taken place before this arbitration. I am asking that we temporarily put these aside and try to keep each other in the project.
These are dark days for USRD, even worse than those of the first arbitration and of SRNC. However, I am confident that if we all stay together as a community that there will be brighter days for USRD.
Some concerns of a few editors have been noted and are being discussed. I hope to propose changes to resolve some of the issues that some of these editors have brought up. However, the arbitration needs to be closed first. We thought that this arbitration would be a much simpler and less stressful process than it turned out to be. Unfortunately, it is very complex and very stressful.
If you need to, please take a break. We value all our editors and do not wish to see them leave.
So in summary, let's work to maintain as best of an environment as we can at USRD while the case is going on.
Not on behalf of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the arbitration 

message: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 26 --NE2 08:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two proposed category renamings