Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 3

message: ====Proposal 1: (2-letter abbrev.)-US-Interstate====
*The type for Interstate Highways will be "Interstate".
*The type for U.S. Routes will be "US".
*The type for state roads will be the state's two-digit abbreviation to match the naming convention currently used for the browse rows. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't be any problem with Washington (besides U.S. vs. US). -- NORTH talk 09:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

message: *The type for Interstate Highways will be "Interstate".
*The type for U.S. Routes will be "US".
*The type for state roads will be the state's two-digit abbreviation to match the naming convention currently used for the browse rows. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't be any problem with Washington (besides U.S. vs. US). -- NORTH talk 09:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1: (2-letter abbrev.)-US-Interstate

message: I think we're making a big fuss over something that can be fixed relatively easily.  I don't see the need to apply strict standardization to the browsing, beyond converting states that look the way that Nevada did to the green infoboxy style.  Some states use the postal abbreviation for type, some use "State", and for whatever reason, New Jersey uses a blank type.
I like NE2's idea of using redirects.  Creating redirects from (for example) Template:Infobox road/WA/link WA to Template:Infobox road/WA/link State will allow for either method of programming to work, while not risking botching everything by a misplaced or incomplete move.  Not that it's all that likely -- we seemed to be exceedingly accurate with the SRNC moves -- but I don't really see the point in another batch of moves for the sake of (oh dear God I'm quoting SPUI) "foolish consistency". -- NORTH talk 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying everyone has to use the new code directly - I'm just saying the base code should be at the above standard. For example, let's take New Jersey. Right now, the base code for the state type is Template:Infobox road/NJ name (blank type). Under the proposal above, it would be moved to Template:Infobox road/NJ NJ name, but the blank type can still be used to get the same result. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why bother moving it? (As opposed to leaving the code where it is and creating a redirect at Template:Infobox road/NJ NJ name.) -- NORTH talk 17:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say if someone's willing to move it then let them; there's no one forcing anyone to leave it alone nor to move them. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'll definitely let them move them as long as the old coding is allowed to remain as well. (Anyone caught reverting such a move deserves to be smacked with a wet noodle.)  I just don't really see the point in moving them -- escpecially since personally I prefer using "State" for type rather than the postal abbreviations. -- NORTH talk 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My two cents

message: Which is the preferred order for browse boxes? s→n/w→e, or alphabetical? —Scott5114↗ 19:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always preferred the former. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. S→N/W→E. Matches the junction list/infobox, the route description section, etc. -- NORTH talk 06:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browse boxes 

message: When I was going through :Category:Florida State Roads and its subcats post-WP:SRNC, I came across several county highways that were former state roads -- but were (IMHO inappropriately) titled as still being state roads.  For these, rather than renaming them from State Road XX (Florida) to Florida State Road XX, I renamed them according to their current designation. Ex: .  A couple days ago, one of these came up on my watchlist, informing me that User:Aerobird moved it back to the state road name (fortunately the SRNC-approved name)  "to conform with standard".  I reverted him back, explaining that State Road 372A no longer exists, and while he has not re-reverted the move, s/he has made similar moves on other articles. (See prior discussion here and here.)
So, simple (I hope) question.  Should an article about a current county highway that used to be a state highway be titled County Road 372A (Wakulla County, Florida) or Florida State Road 372A? -- NORTH talk 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: County. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  *GASP* Florida highway naming controversy 

message: I've recently created :Category:Decommissioned highways to help us categorize the articles we have on highway designations that have been removed. If your state has a subcat for decommissioned routes (like Missouri), go ahead and put it in there. We also have the child category :Category:Decommissioned U.S. Highways for U.S. routes.
If you read last week's Wikipedia Signpost (specifically the BRION feature), you know about the new  magic word. If on the article for, say, U.S. 177, you put  sortkeys would be properly added to all categories the article belongs to. Should save us a bit of typing. —Scott5114↗ 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category notes 

message: Anyone game for a subproject to centralize the discussion on infobox/browsing standards? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's what we need to do... it's crazy trying to keep things straight as it is. Good idea. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm game for sure. •  master_sonLets talk 23:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Will certainly help out where I can once I clean out my to-do list. -- NORTH talk 23:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI - observe Interstate 90 as the browse boxes for all the states it crosses are now present in the article.  I happen to pick this as a lucky one since there are questionable issues on the Idaho route images (the "bug"), but I put in SD and MT this weekend and ID, MN (with SVGs!), IN and OH tonight.  good work on the browse boxes guys! •  master_sonLets talk 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox/browsing subproject 

message: Someone split U.S. Route 422, but does not seem to be doing any link fixing. What do you think? Should this be reverted? --NE2 03:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user involved has a bad record... see #A copyvio problem on my talk page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does that matter in this case? We should be discussing the merits of the split, not the history of the user. --NE2 03:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True... it does add into question the verifiability of the information... is what is there true? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: US 422 is a two-piece route that has never been connected; it was presumably planned to connect via US 22. The old article describes this. --NE2 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: According to the FHWA, US 422 was going to be a one-piece route, but the overlap was too long. For this reason, I think the article should stay together. --NE2 04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I was shocked it was split in the first place. US 422 is more Pennsylvania Route 29 than Pennsylvania Route 97, if you follow. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, go ahead and revert. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split of US 422 

message: It was taken because the contractor goofed and placed the plates over the wrong shields. But I really don't think it adds anything to the article. --NE2 09:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Even if it weren't "too blurry to be useful", it still wouldn't really be useful for the article. -- NORTH talk 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone else find this image way too blurry to be useful? 

message: This was created by a user making edits to various Oregon Route pages, and since that project isn't particularly active, I figured I'd bring the question here.  What do you guys think?  Is it a neologism?  Is it a useful article? -- NORTH talk 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a neologism to me. Usefulness? I dunno, that mileage can vary. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user who created it has partially reverted himself on the Oregon Route articles, and I suggested that he  it.  Problem solved before it happened. -- NORTH talk 23:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There probably should be something on the subject. All of Florida's U.S. and Interstate highways have "secret" (more properly "hidden") SR designations - some of which are better hidden than others - and a number of other states do the same. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Secret highway number]] 

message: Ridge Route has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridge Route FAR 

message: Oh, the irony of that section heading. :)  I was thumbing thru  and found several of the WP:USRD templates filed under C.  Would it be appropriate to move the templates themselves into their own subcat, say  or even a more specific ?  This would make them easier to find and use for the WP:USRD members and thin out the cleanup category. — MrDolomite | Talk 14:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That can definitely be done. Another thing that should probably be done is to give the cleanup templates a consistent name. The most feasible NC would probably be "Cleanup-(abbrev)sh" for the state-level ones, "Cleanup-ih" for Interstates and "Cleanup-ush" for U.S. routes. The "Cleanup-" portion is derived from the standard convention of cleanup templates on Wikipedia, and the rest of the NC following the dash is determined by the redirects that point to that WikiProject (as "WP:(abbrev)SH", "WP:IH", and "WP:USH" redirect to the state, Interstate, and U.S. route WikiProjects respectively). --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed...but on one condition.  For states like New York, Indiana, and Rhode Island that do not use cleanupstsh (st being the state), they should use the two shortcut letters, in this case for New York and Indiana, stsr, and for Rhode Island, str. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 05:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a standard convention? (Keep in mind that I'm from NY and the fact of having a template named "nysh" irks me, but I realize this needs fixing.) --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of...but the original poster wanted a separate category for USRD specific cleanup templates.  Now, suddenly you're jumping to NCs?  Let's take care of categories first, NCs second. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When two problems need to be fixed, it makes sense to fix them simultaneously. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I already created the non-existing categories, so I'll open up AWB and change the cleanup templates' categories. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 05:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The proposal that I detailed above has now been fully implemented, with the exception of the standard suffix (as I forgot about the presence of county route cleanup tags, which would throw a wrench into the naming naturally). --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of Cleanup Templates 

message: My file upload bot on commons now has a bot flag.  If anybody has lots of images that need to be uploaded to Commons, please let me know, since this bot is only accessible by me! V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 02:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons file upload bot 

message: This template is getting rather large, even with the split versions. What should we do about this? Hide/show links? Split it again? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think hide/show links would work the best if the necessary code can be added without significantly inflating the size of the template. If we have to resort to splitting it again though, we may have to go by time zone. =) --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and then don't hide or show the nationwide stuff. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan to me. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What about the split states? ;) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll have to petition the state legislatures to adopt a single time zone. =) --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a plan in action to take care of this still? Stratosphere (U T) 22:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, forgot about this. Hide-show work for all? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my vote, I'd be willing to say make the Project wide stuff not hideable, but each state project news hideable. Stratosphere (U T) 02:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Project U.S. Roads and family 

message: I love the fact that infobox road does the conversion from miles to kilometers automatically, but there is one minor issue.  Take a look at County Route 641 (Sussex County, New Jersey).  The road is 1.24 miles long, which is 1.9956 kilometers.  This rounds to 2.00 km, which displays as "2 km".  This just looks wrong to me, I even double checked to make sure I didn't make a type when entering the length_round parameter.
Is there anyway to get it to not cut off the trailing zeroes?  I know if I put "2 km" on my chemistry test (significant figures), I'd get the question wrong. -- NORTH talk 19:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched bugzilla for "round significant figures" and found . It looks to be inactive. --NE2 20:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor problem with {{tl|infobox road}} 

message: 512theking is grounded...new user (User:JohnnyAlbert10) is not a sock... V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 03:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more vandalism 

message: We have over 1000 articles in the unassessed category, and I believe there's about 200-500 more that aren't in the category yet. But I did find User:Kingbotk/Plugin. Anyone have any problems before I try and fire it up?
I do know that we'll have to make a second run through (with AWB) and add the mapneeded, for the plugin doesn't support that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget it. It's too slow. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once in awhile I get into an assessing mood and attempt to tackle a good chunk of a state. 1500 articles is a feasible number to tackle without automation; we just need each of us to tag 5 or 10 articles per day.  Perhaps I'll try seeing if I can make that quota... starting tomorrow ;) --Thisisbossi 03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The assessment backload 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127 --NE2 18:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted on the AfD for the aforementioned articles: Perhaps we should combine many short routes into a list of short routes.  It's just a thought that would be especially good for routes like County Route 66; we could put 10 or 20 on a page.  Perhaps there's some other way of combining some, some better idea.  Maybe something like "List of short Minnesota State Highways numbered 120-150".  I'm not against an article for every route, but thousands of article for routes a few miles or less that only have a few sentences describing them?  If it will be that way, so be it, but we will probably see numerous AfDs on articles, and I could see this going to arbitration in the end.  Just a thought. --MPD T / C 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: State routes are notable. Presumably, to be included in a state-funded, state-numbered system, a highway has to have some redeeming characteristics: a need, and traffic volumes to suit it. Not so with county roads: they provide access to backwoodsy areas and haven't been judged worthy of being added to the state highway system. Thus, I would advocate merging county roads, but not state highways. —Scott5114↗ 05:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily true.  In some states (New Jersey comes to mind) county routes are fairly major.  Also, in many states, "secondary" roads are state-maintained and often frequently confused with "county" roads.  Funding, maintenance, and purpose varies far to greatly from state-to-state to make a blanket statement like that.  The only question should be is if valid source material can be found to write an article from, not some arbitrary and blindly appliued standard.  A road that gets press in reliable sources, from which we can write an article, can have an article. --Jayron32 06:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, any major county route is notable.  There could be some controversy about Missouri Supplemental Routes, since there are so many of them, and that there are multiple designations for one route.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 06:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be helpful to see what we have done in Maryland, which uses a single article to account for the minor roadways. See List of minor Maryland state highways.  Cheers! --Thisisbossi 22:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Something needs to be done.  I like the "List of minor" route, but until we figure something out, there needs to be an TRO against AfDing these routes.  --MPD T / C 00:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  In fact, can somebody enforce something now?  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 00:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except Wikipedia doesn't have a legal system in which I could ask for a TRO.  At least not one that I know of.  We really need to watch AfD and explain that we're aware and we're working on hopefully removing these articles.  Speaking of which, we need to be doing that.  --MPD T / C 01:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True; I put "Wikipedia is not paper" on all of those AFDs.  Perhaps this could be brought up at WP:AN and have other admins comment?  If that doesn't help, we could request ArbCom enforcement  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 01:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly.  They can be done like that by state (much like Maryland), or for states like Virginia: "list of minor primary routes in Virginia", and "list of (significant) secondary routes by county".  Not the exact titles, but the idea rather.  The county routes by county, obviously.  --MPD T / C 02:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a reminder, this is why WP:USRD/P was created... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You might want to block him for damaging Wikipedia (if he does request deletion of 5400+ road articles).  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, only if he does proceed to attempt to delete a massive number... it's not blockable, but he could be sent to ArbCom or RFC if he tries. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be that Edeans was being sarcastic, so I agree: assume good faith unless actions actually match words.  Even still, I highly doubt any admin would dare let such a vast supply of information go *poof*.  All such an act would do is damage Edeans' credibility.  On the one hand, I strongly embrace the concept that Wikipedia is not paper; but then again, once in awhile I stumble upon a highway article that is some utterly useless and devoid of information (or it provides original research which may be equally useless and/or obvious, i.e. "southbound is really bad at 6pm").  The Minor roads article idea could be modified to encompass all stubs for a State.  As notable information becomes available that would merit an upgrade to Start class, that article could then be spun off from the listing and into its own article.  Basic geometrics, geography, and existing road names can all be accommodated within the listing just fine; but I think history is what really sets a road article apart. --Thisisbossi 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can and will block for any WP:POINT violation I see. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two deletion debates 

message: From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York):
*Delete.  Time to clear out the roadcruft.  Edeans 06:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to block him for damaging Wikipedia (if he does request deletion of 5400+ road articles).  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, only if he does proceed to attempt to delete a massive number... it's not blockable, but he could be sent to ArbCom or RFC if he tries. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be that Edeans was being sarcastic, so I agree: assume good faith unless actions actually match words.  Even still, I highly doubt any admin would dare let such a vast supply of information go *poof*.  All such an act would do is damage Edeans' credibility.  On the one hand, I strongly embrace the concept that Wikipedia is not paper; but then again, once in awhile I stumble upon a highway article that is some utterly useless and devoid of information (or it provides original research which may be equally useless and/or obvious, i.e. "southbound is really bad at 6pm").  The Minor roads article idea could be modified to encompass all stubs for a State.  As notable information becomes available that would merit an upgrade to Start class, that article could then be spun off from the listing and into its own article.  Basic geometrics, geography, and existing road names can all be accommodated within the listing just fine; but I think history is what really sets a road article apart. --Thisisbossi 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can and will block for any WP:POINT violation I see. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Now this just makes me mad

message: Is there any interest for a newsletter such as those that WP:NYSH and WP:NJSH have? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm definitely interested.  How come nobody thought of this sooner?  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe make this a subproject? Should we include all subproject participants as well? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  How about a bot, like your's deliver the Newsletter?  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 00:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AWB would be easier... since the bot is difficult to set up. If I delivered, it would need to have saturday publication since there's over 100+ editors... okay, I'll start setting it all up. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just operate the bot using AWB.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 00:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter really which account, AWB would probably take about 15 minutes to distribute to all. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletters 

message: should help simplify the code needed to make the succession box on the bottom of state-detail articles. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For your state-detail needs... 

message: To be frank, whether it's a good idea or not, I don't really see any deletionist movement being successful.  There are definitely merits to the idea of merging stub articles, although the selfish part of me is opposed to it because it would counteract the hard work put in on the NJ county route articles the past couple of weeks.
Here's an idea I was curious if anyone had thought of... What if we created a new separate roads wiki??? -- NORTH talk 18:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging doesn't require AfD... just put a  (or mergefrom) tag on the appropriate articles, wait to see if there is consensus, and do it. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd spend all my time on two wikis then, not just one.  But...it's an option.  I don't like the idea of the roads wiki not being on here; then it would be near impossible to get info on roads.  Maybe to suppliment what is on Wikipedia...but that would just give reasons for there to be no roads article on here.  --MPD T / C 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I know it's a terribly controversial "solution" (term used loosely), just thought I'd throw the option out there. -- NORTH talk 21:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forking is indeed an option, but IMO only if a majority of roads articles are in imminent danger of being deleted. As a very last resort, the pages could even be archived to roadgeeks' personal sites to host the content. —Scott5114↗ 06:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with that. But Wikipedia has the infastructure needed, setting up another site would be a pain. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, this sounds familiar.  Why don't we worry about what's at hand and try to save as much information as we can just in case something happens.  I have copies of templates and a few routes in text documents on my comp; just in case something happens, I've got it.  And if we hypothetically were to create our own wiki, we could use the same code and just have to copy and paste.  Anyway, first, let's worry about getting these AfDs stopped.  I'm sure it'll pass in time.  We need to hold strong and get more than us five or six participating in not only these discussions about what to do but in all discussions, including AfDs and GA noms and even Peer Reviews.  We need to stimulate our base.  --MPD T / C 07:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In such an event, I might be able to get the deleted text (however, I would need to get permission first, or at least advice. I remember someone got desysopped for something like that). We've got a newsletter coming Saturday to raise awareness. A lot of editors have not contributed to this project discussions lately and it's haunting us right now. Something must be done. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on deletion 

message: A number of Florida state road pages have had the term "Multiplex" replaced with "Concurrency" on the grounds that the latter is a "more natural term". Now I find the former to be more "proper" but what do y'all think? - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been done to Oklahoma pages too. In one place, begins a duplex with was replaced by joins with. I remember SPUI used to say that concurrency was an official term used by DOTs while duplex/triplex/multiplex was a roadgeek neologism. —Scott5114↗ 05:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But "du/tri/multiplex" isn't the correct term.  It's a "concurrency".  Multiplex- aside from the fact that it's ambiguous- links to "concurrency (road)" anyway.  --MPD T / C 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only place I have an issue with this mass replacement is in junction tables, where the use of "overlap" would be better. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even then...in the notes column "Route X joins eastbound and leaves westbound" and in the table-wide marker I prefer to use "joins" and "leaves".  But still, overlap is better when it's used as a verb in itself, but "has a concurrency/run concurrent" is good, too...that depends on the usage.  Example: "I-40 overlaps with I-85 in central North Carolina" but "I-40 and I-85 run concurrent through central North Carolina" or "I-40 has a concurrency with I-85 in central North Carolina".  Either way, duplex, IMO, is a terrible word, triplex I think is worse, multiplex is acceptable, but unadvisible.  Concurrency is the best choice.  --MPD T / C 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm referring to is New York State Route 21 compared to U.S. Route 9 in New York. Exit lists...I have no personal preference. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just be wary that there's so many instances that have been replaced already. Probably close to 1K. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: LOL, didn't realize until I saw my own edit summary on my watchlist the inherent hilarity of my unintentional pun (now bolded).  A little humor is good from time to time. -- NORTH talk 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Those weren't good places to post. This talk page probably would have been better as it is much more active. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't really need to post anywhere before carrying out an obvious application of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. --NE2 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's obvious to one person is not always obvious to others. It seems we're scrubbing "multiplex" from Wikipedia not so much because it's just made up but because it's jargon, used primarily in the roadfan community. Since so many articles had been written using it, and it's been used in the roadfan community for some time, I told Krimpet it deserved more consensus than he'd gotten and suggested he post at this more active talk page. It seems like he's getting it here, which is fine. But for myself any sort of bold move like that over a whole bunch of articles requires, morally at least, that you give a heads-up where it's most likely to be seen. Daniel Case 04:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Rschen7754 that those weren't the best places to post; I wasn't aware there was a WikiProject Highways.  But since I, and many other editors, agree with the edits that you've made, it's no big deal IMO, don't worry about it.  --MPD T / C 02:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a shell though, just like WP:USRD was in 2005. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I'll admit I'm still relatively new here so I wasn't aware it was a low traffic group I posted to; I just assumed I should go up the hierarchy and post in the most general forum. I'll make sure to discuss stuff in places like here in the future. Krimpet 02:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiplex vs Concurrency 

message: Is there any way to put it somewhere else? I know it's a FAQ but it does take up room... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shields subproject probably. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Moved to FAQ page of shields subproject. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has this (bugzilla:5463) actually been fixed? I can't manage to get User:NE2/shields displaying all shields; when I purge, some appear but others disappear. --NE2 05:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found it's hit-and-miss. For example, I had to purge :Image:I-70.svg on at least six different occasions before the thing finally began consistently displaying. The way I approach this bug (or, rather, its aftereffects) is whenever I find a shield that won't display, I immediately go to the Commons (or the page here if it's uploaded locally) and purge it. Of course, I often need to purge it multiple times before the thumbnail on an article displays properly. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: After checking out your page, I agree that this bug may not be fully nipped. Never have I seen images appearing and disappearing like this... --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy crap...you're dead right on this one.  Is the bug still open? V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 05:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a reason it's not - only images uploaded before the bug was fixed are acting kooky. I used NE2's test page above as a base for my own, where I tested :Image:NY-153.svg, uploaded some time after the bug was corrected. The image rendered correctly at all sizes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the fix is to reupload the affected files? -- NORTH talk 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's entirely possible. Couldn't hurt to reupload an affected image and test it. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there anything in common between the images that aren't displaying, were they all created by the same person or by the same software.  I haven't noticed any bugs with the images I have created using Inkscape.  --Holderca1 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably SPUI's using Adobe Illustrator to create the SVGs.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 21:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG bug 5463 

message: Edeans has put California State Route 37 up for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/California_State_Route_37. This is just getting out of hand. --HowardSF-U­-T-C- 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I'm going to ANI. This is a GA for crying out loud! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely ridiculous. Left my comments on the AfD, will leave some on ANI as well. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can and will block for any WP:POINT violation I see. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I will not block unless I see 50 AFD nominations or something like that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless it's horribly blatantly violating Wiki policies (like 50 AFDs), I will not block. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, even in that case, get someone else to do it. Bring it to AN/I, or take it to IRC if it's really a crisis, and ask for another set of eyes. You are way too close. Sorry, no offense, but you are. ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that my blocking would be a violation of WP policies. However, I will ask on IRC to block instead if the need arises. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you could well rules lawyer around to it not being a violation, but that's not my point. My point is, it's a bad idea and the block will cause less strife if given out by someone uninvolved. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Third, Major Deletion Debate 

message: Just something I'd like people to be aware of so that maybe we can take a step back, and take a couple of deep breaths before we get into long drawn-out fights unnecessarily.
There's been a couple of instances recently of people trying to reopen old wounds (perhaps unintentionally) by saying things like "just another thing done without seeking consensus".
And it's certainly true that Wikipedia operates by consensus, or to quote Wikipedia:Consensus, "Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process."  But when someone accuses someone else of doing something without seeking consensus, it shows that they're a little unclear on what the wiki process is.  A couple more quotes from the lead paragraph of that consensus page, with emphasis added, should help to clarify things. "The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. ... "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.
When someone wants to make a good faith effort to improve an article or the encyclopedia, there's no obligation for them to actively seek consensus first.  That's what be bold means, edit first.  Then, if someone disagrees with you, resolve your disagreement through discussion.  Above all, please remember that status quo is not, under any circumstances, the same thing as consensus.  Just because something is the way it is, even if it's been that way for a really long time, doesn't mean someone can't come along and make it better.
Just everyone keep an open mind, take a deep breath, and then just maybe, we can finally all get along. -- NORTH talk 03:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] 

message: The standards at WP:USRD/INNA have been written up - now awaiting comments and approval. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes and Navigation 

message: Could someone who knows ParserFunctions fix the importance category switch on ? It would be appreciated. Thanks. —Scott5114↗ 20:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I got it fixed. —Scott5114↗ 18:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template help needed 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storrow Drive --NE2 11:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: another one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tennison Road --Holderca1 12:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, just noticed this one isn't in the U.S., but anyways...  --Holderca1 12:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another deletion debate 

message: I'll probably start putting up maps of Interstates shortly according to the standards, but I wondered if my technique is a copyright violation.
I would zoom in to the scale I want on Google Maps and take a screen copy. Then I would trace the roads on a separate layer above the Google Maps screenshot.
Is this derivative work a copyvio? —Rob (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that it depends how accurate Google's data is, so probably not, unlike tracing a stylized map. You might want to check on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.... --NE2 05:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A tracing of google maps is a derivative work. And thus a copyvio as far as we are concerned. Megapixie 00:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What matters is the final product; if Google Maps's data is accurate, you can't tell that it is a tracing. The information about where the roads are located cannot be copyrighted. --NE2 06:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is tracing a copyvio? 

message: Since this page has much to do with all the projects, we are proposing to move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide. Are there any objections? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TMF, rschen, and myself all agree on this.  Anybody else?  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 06:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  --MPD T / C 07:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Do it. --Holderca1 07:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:IH/ELG]] 

message: This seems to be an issue only on New Jersey pages, but I figured I'd bring it here for a couple of reasons (the relative inactivity of WT:NJSCR, and that it could turn into an issue on any USRD article).  What's the opinion on photo galleries?  Specifically, should they be included?  And if so, where in the article?
I'd been meaning to tackle the issue for a while, but didn't have the guts to do it until a mini-edit war developped on County Route 549 Spur (New Jersey).  There are a couple of issues at play here.  As Alansohn points out, putting the gallery where I currently have it prescribed on WP:NJSCR (where it is in this revision) might break the flow of the article.  However, putting it anywhere else – specifically below the link sections, i.e. here – violates WP:GTL.  Taking the pictures out of a gallery – i.e. the current revision – is awkward when there's not enough article text to support it.
Which begs the question of whether we should have these photo montages.  Certainly to some degree, it violates Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.  The question is to what degree?  How much do the seven images in the New Jersey Turnpike gallery contribute to the context of the article – especially when three of them are written with captions telling the story of a specific hazardous spill that happened one day? -- NORTH talk 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps only one or two of those images is good for the article: the toll booth and traffic.  However, they could both be put somewhere in the prose, I'm sure.  Galleries, IMO, are not good for an article about a road.  Pictures are good, yes, but only if they can be put into the prose.  The rest of the images on NJTP are fine.  There should be a link to the Commons where there can certainly be a gallery of images there (as there is on the NJTP, but I'd like to see it in a more prominent position than at the very bottom of the article).  In the case of NJCR 549, it one of those images should be brought up to the prose, on the left, near where "segment 1" and "segment 2" are, IMO the second image.  They should really all be on the commons if they're PD, then a Commons link to the gallery there.  --MPD T / C 19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's my text size or resolution, but when I hit a gallery, especialy if it runs to two or more rows, it appears that the article has ended. *I* know it hasn't, but other readers are unlikely to continue further to references and links. In many cases, these galleries are little more than laundry lists of uploaded pictures, that have no connection to the article other than showing a small stretch of the title roadway. I'd be happy with pushing them down to the bottom, which keeps them in the article, but makes them the afterthought they seem to be. It's not clear that WP:GTL requires that links be the last item or if it merely suggest an order. Alansohn 20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I booted all of the pictures on the I-80 article to the bottom because I couldn't pick the two or three best of the lot and put them in the article. I objectively (subjectively?) couldn't tell. Number of pictures should be directly related to the length of the road, though. A county route spur should have no more than 2 pics. I-80, one for each state and optionally the ends (but Wikipedia is not a <state name> Ends Page, either). State routes, 3-5, again depending on the length of the road, and if there's anything "visually notable". If all the pictures look the same, just pick the best one and be done with it. —Rob (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My personal take is that galleries should be avoided whenever possible, as they (IMHO) detract from the quality of the article. Instead of a gallery, the images should accompany the prose or (if licensed freely) be removed from the article and get moved to the Commons, where a gallery can be made there. An example is on U.S. Route 422, where a gallery of 8 images once existed. As part of my cleanup of the article a while ago, I ditched the gallery and included the images alongside the prose, improving the article in my opinion. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with this philosophy; I was just having trouble with the "canyon of text" that runs down the middle of the page when you have pictures floating left and right. There's a length table floating on the left, a major cities table running the length of the page floated right, and any pictures will be under these two respective tables, creating the canyon. At 1024x768, it starts to look really crowded. —Rob (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too.  I don't like "canyons of text", either.  Interstate 76 (east) is on the upper limit of what an article should look like. Still looks better than it did. --MPD T / C 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Would it be possible to get a Commons link in the infobox?  It'd be optional provided there's a corresponding Commons gallery.  --MPD T / C 22:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, just need to modify Infobox road, add a parameter such as commons=yes.  --Holderca1 23:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer a question that has yet to be asked: Best place for said link would probably be below the little-used links row that exists below the browse row. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll support moving to Commons. But we also need a higher quality of pictures on most articles for the pictures that stay. Perhaps a Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Pictures guidelines? —Rob (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say a higher quality, do you mean using a better camera or better composition of the photograph?  --Holderca1 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better composition. It's not too hard to make I-70, 80, 90 and 94 all look the same if you're in the Great Plains. I think the idea is to take photos of the highways that allow you to distinguish one from another visually, too. —Rob (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, photos of rural interstates should be avoided unless there is something truly remearkable about the scene.  All rural interstates look the same, 2 lanes in each direction, median in the middle, got it, don't need a photo of each one.  Photos of interstates through urban areas are much more interesting.  --Holderca1 18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Of course, I'm all about scenery.  A rural interstate with mountains in the background is a great sight!  But yes.  A nice rural image is better than no image at all.  But if there's a good urban image, it can take the place of a rural image should it need to be decided.  But yes, higher quality and urban trump lower and rural.  I'll comment more later,  have to go--MPD T / C 19:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Extra points for pictures that actually have the shields of the highway in them. Shields happen to be great distinguishing visual markers. —Rob (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the moving to Commons, too.  The idea hadn't even crossed my mind. -- NORTH talk 18:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, this just screwed up every other infobox. Look at Minnesota State Highway 200. --Sable232 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that; I saved a messed up version. Now it pulls the name displayed from what's at the top of the infobox. --NE2 21:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are going to have dab issues if we use what is at the top of the infobox.  --Holderca1 22:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true; it still links to the right place. --NE2 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, I misunderstood what you meant.  --Holderca1 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This could be harder than I thought.  On "Interstate XX in [State]" articles, how would it link to the general "Interstate XX" gallery on the commons?  Like Interstate 74 in North Carolina has a link that goes to commons:Category:Interstate 74.  --MPD T / C 22:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple, use a redirect.  --Holderca1 23:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with this, perhaps for interstates this works, but most roads will have one or two photos of them, why create a category for the road if just one photo is needed, it will just make it harder to maintain and to upload photos as well.  I think it should point to a gallery page and if a cat exists for that road, then a redirect is put in place to have it point to that category.  --Holderca1 11:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a parameter to choose whether you want a category or not? --NE2 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That works, makes sense just as  and  both exist.  --Holderca1 15:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, it's done, put either commons=category or commons=gallery, for those that have already put commons=yes, they will need to go back to make the change.  I change NJ 7 and CR 549.  --Holderca1 15:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, that's a good compromise.  I wasn't aware that there were two different templates, and after reading Commons:Categories a little more thoroughly, it seems like the best way to go about it – there's no consensus there as to whether galleries or categories are better, only that both are fine. -- NORTH talk 16:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is linking a reader to :commons:Category:Interstate 80 the goal? I clicked on it and there are a few shields, a lot of maps, and one picture on the first page. Are we creating separate categories for just the pictures? —Rob (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I wouldn't create another cat just for pictures, the link in the infobox just says media, it doesn't specify photos.  If you just want to link to the photos, I would recommend the use of a gallery instead.  --Holderca1 17:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right... that's entirely a stylistic issue, then. It depends on how unappealing dumping a user onto the commons page is. If there's over a certain number of pics in the category, I would consider making a separate gallery, otherwise it is what it is. —Rob (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo galleries?