Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 4

message: :Image:I-494.svg and :Image:I-794.svg have defied all of my attempts to purge and re-purge so that the images show up (see Crosstown Expressway (Interstate 494)). Is it better to just re-upload all of the shields and hope this problem goes away once and for all? —Rob (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been confirmed above that reuploading the shields is a guaranteed way to fix the bug. I say go ahead. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we talking reuploading all the shields, or just the buggy ones?  I don't think we need to reupload all of them, I think the bug just comes from those made in Adobe.  So maybe just those.  --Holderca1 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the buggy ones. No point in reuploading ones that already work. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If my memory serves me right, all of the U.S. Route and Interstate shields (except some of the newer ones like :Image:US 20A.svg) that haven't been reuploaded are glitchy. Some state systems that may be affected are Florida and Virginia, but I'm not positive. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have mentioned once before, it's probably SPUI's using Adobe Illustrator to create the SVGs.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm> Yes, let's blame everything on SPUI, since he's been gone for months.  Everything must be his fault. </sarcasm> -- NORTH talk 23:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Try clearing your cache. I-494 works for me on the article linked at the top of this section. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I opened it in Inkscape (OS X, not that it matters) and re-saved it. That finally did the trick. I'll try doing the same to U.S. 278 now. —Rob (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW!  It works! :) --MPD T / C 05:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I came here from Bugzilla:5463. I noticed a few weeks back that in  the image  wasn't shown. This was the case even after I purged  several times and even after I reuploaded the image. Still the 62px image doesn't work. Any solutions to this problem? -- Paddu 21:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is that link you put in there, are you sure you have that right, it has two extensions, svg and png, I-476.svg shows up fine for me.  Why do you want it at 62px, seems like a totally random size.  --Holderca1 21:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I uploaded a new version at 22:06 23 Feb 2007. That could be why it shows up fine -- I replace the broken SVGs as I hear about them. —Rob (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My computer and browser requires a .png extension after the .svg extension in order to show up.  Sometimes, though.  Only if I'm changing the file name in the address bar do I need a .png extension.  It's weird, i know. If I go to a shield, right click, and select "copy image location" (PC), and then paste it, it adds a .png extension.  --MPD T / C 23:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's because IE 6 doesn't support SVGs, so Wikipedia automatically converts SVGs to PNGs (but possibly just for that browser). —Rob (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Firefox.  But doesn't really matter though; the SVGs work after they're reuploaded.  --MPD T / C 17:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-upload all shields? 

message: I have solicited a response to recent listings at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. You are invited to come participate. --Iamunknown 05:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent articles for deletion 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island Route 11; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newark Airport Interchange --NE2 12:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussions 

message: Copied from Talk:U.S. Route 20:
:So... what's the balance between "a summary of U.S. Route 20 in X" and "not enough content"? 
Thanks! —Rob (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "States traversed" section 

message: Dutchess County Route 33 is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutchess County Route 33. Please review the article and participate. Alansohn 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to abstain from the AfD since I don't want to encourage a slippery slope of more road AfDs, but honestly wouldn't it be a good idea to draw the inherent notability line at state highways and above? I think the politician guidelines in WP:BIO set a good precedent: members of nationwide and statewide legislatures (thus Interstates, US routes, and state routes) are considered notable, while local politicians (thus county-level routes and city streets) must have an additional claim to fame to merit their own article. Krimpet 03:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dutchess County Route 33]] AfD 

message: There have been recent changes in the merging of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS into WP:ATT, along with related changes at WP:N. One thing that may affect geographic projects is the tightening of the requirement for multiple secondary sources for all articles. Many geographic articles are created from a single primary source like census data or topo maps. Technically, this would subject these articles to deletion. If you have not checked these policies lately, you should. And be sure to check the supporting discussions. Remember WP policies and guidelines are supposed to incorporate a broad consensus. Dhaluza 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that any commercial map that shows the road can be added to the references, this "threat" has no teeth. I also don't see anything at Wikipedia:Attribution that matches what you say. --NE2 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:ATT states the following: "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Route descriptions and such that rely on maps and topos are perfectly valid in this regard; they use maps to back up descriptive claims that can easily be backed up by consulting the map. Krimpet 00:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent policy changes limiting primary sources 

message: Due to the number of contributors to this project taking a big hit following SRNC, I think we need to look at some consolidation.  I am proposing we merge WP U.S. Interstate Highways and WP U.S. Highways into this project.  This would consolidate conversations to a central location.  It would cut down on a lot of administrative tasks between the three.  WP:IH and WP:USH have less highways combined than most of the states.  --Holderca1 11:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know how I feel about that.  I'm leaning toward opposing this...but I'd like to hear from other editors on this first before I really take a stand.  --MPD T / C 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems like a good idea to me, since Interstates and U.S. Highways are just state or local highways with funny-looking shields. Other than the involvement of the FHWA and AASHTO, there's nothing that differentiates the process of writing them from that of any other U.S. road. --NE2 21:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't see what the difference would be one way or the other.  For me at least, I treat all highway articles the same for the bulk of my editing.  The individual state WikiProjects (and USH and IH) just deal with little idiosynchracies between the states. -- NORTH talk 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the benefit is that we'd have a centralized place to discuss. --NE2 21:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not just redirect the talk pages for IH and USH to here?  --MPD T / C 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) I oppose this vehemently. An article on an Interstate has a distinctly different composition than that of a U.S. route. For the most part, the "centralized discussion" argument is moot: most of the discussion already occurs here anyway. It's not as if consolidation will lead to more getting done. Someone still has to make edits to work on the articles, and if the same amount of editors are present, it will take just as long to make the edits whether there is consolidation or not. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be the difference between the article on Interstate 68 and the article on U.S. Route 48 had it not been redesignated in 1989? --NE2 22:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also don't understand what difference there is between the composition of an Interstate and a U.S. Route.  In my opinion they should be the composed the same if they aren't that way already.  I personally believe all road articles should have the same basic structure.  --Holderca1 14:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I support redirecting the talk pages as MPD suggested, centralized discussion is a good thing, but there's enough differences between writing about Interstates and US routes that it's a good thing to have separate style guides and such. Krimpet 23:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merger 

message: I've been playing with the different road categories at the Commons, and I think I may have a way to make them little more organized and presentable to people coming in from the new Commons links. How about sorting them so the shield comes first, then a map of the route, then all photos of the route sorted roughly west-east/south-north, then all other miscellaneous media after that? (See commons:Category:Interstate 76 (east) for an example.) This would make it easier for the viewer to get an idea of the sights along the route in order, and make it easier to determine where along the route a picture was taken. Krimpet 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is pretty simple, just upload the image to the commons, then place  on the image here and that's it, an admin will make there way to the image here and delete it eventually.  --Holderca1 15:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting categories at the Commons? 

message: I've noticed that enough articles coming out of this project and various subprojects are heading to peer review and/or GA noms.
However, the community-at-large seems to have some difficulty with some of these road articles (see this example) due to unfamiliarity with the subject.
Perhaps we could follow the example of so many other projects and have a peer review section of our own? We wouldn't be the first transportation-related project to do so (there's already one for rail). I've found peer reviews by people specializing in a subject, particularly one on which so many people are doing so much good work, to be more informed and helpful than ones that come from the community as a whole. Plus it would reduce the backlog on peer review a little bit.
Anyone else? Daniel Case 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm game with something like this.  I'll create the page ASAP.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 18:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is probably a good idea, but it's probably important that we do some regular peer review as well.  Otherwise, we'll think an article is perfect just because it meets all of our standards, only to have those standards questioned later on because they don't meet Wikipedia standards, like at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 37. -- NORTH talk 23:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a tiered process will work, where articles are sent first to the Highways peer review and then, once those issues have been addressed, to the normal peer review. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent plan. -- NORTH talk 23:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our own peer review section? 

message: Due to the loss of Werdnabot, we are switching to User:MiszaBot II so that automatic archiving continues. Any projects still with Werdnabot code are encouraged to go to User:MiszaBot II and request archival. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New archival bot 

message: Now that we've gotten all the kinks out, there's still one more question that's left unanswered.  Just how much information are we planning on including there.  For example, Interstate 78 in New Jersey is maintained by:
*DRJTBC for the westernmost 3 miles (more than just the bridge approach)
*NJDOT for most of the highway
*NJTA on the Newark Bay Extension
*PANYNJ on the Holland Tunnel approaches
How many of those should be included in the infobox?  All of them?  Just the DOT and the Turnpike Authority?  The Bridge Commission, but not the Port Authority? -- NORTH talk 17:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Include all of them.  See Interstate 476 for two, but generally it's the same idea.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've already included two on several other New Jersey routes; I was just checking whether all four of these were worthy of inclusion. -- NORTH talk 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another question about the new maint parameter 

message: I am about to nominate a few articles for deletion, just wanted to run it through here, maybe I am missing something, they look like surface streets in Plano, Texas and Dallas, Texas.  Plano Parkway (Plano, Texas), Parker Road (Plano, Texas), Midway Road (Plano, Texas), Lovers Lane, Dallas, Texas, Knox Street, Dallas, Texas, Frankford Road, Dallas, Texas and Midway Road, Dallas, Texas.  None of these are associated with any state or county highway, if they are, they fail to mention it.  Are any of these worth keeping?  I am a bit surprised they haven't found their way to AfD yet.  --Holderca1 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there wasn't a response, I have nominated them all at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frankford Road, Dallas, Texas.  --Holderca1 17:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for Deletion 

message: :Refactored to WT:USRD/IRC.
02:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC and this project 

message: I have rewritten and expanded Ridge Route. Before I take it to peer review, can I have some advice and comments? Thank you. --NE2 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've taken it to Wikipedia:Peer review/Ridge Route/archive1. --NE2 02:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridge Route 

message: I realize that your wikiproject has remained as authentic as possible in its use of state road shields; however, West Virginia's is so plain and uninteresting that it can often be confused with the shields of other states. Therefore, I propose substituting  with . As a West Virginian, I do prefer the design of the latter. Thanks for your consideration. Mphamilton 16:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, no... This is an encyclopedia... -- NORTH talk 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagreed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree --Mhking 03:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a bad shield though.  If numbers look good in it, suggest it to (the DOT of) West Virginia.  If they change theirs, we will too.  --MPD T / C 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, you should be able to use it on userpages and for the wikiproject symbol. —Rob (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, send it to WVDOH. Oklahoma changed their shield for the Centennial, perhaps you can find another reason that WVDOH might want to spend the money on new shields. Or, just send it to The Great International Highway Makeover so other roadgeeks can see it. —Scott5114↗ 07:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In case anyone hasn't noticed, the "replacement" image above is neither centered nor a preferred image type. The edges of the shield are cut off and it is a JPEG, where the preferred non-vector format for this case would be PNG. Regardless, this shield is unencyclopedic and should not be used in article space. If you want to use it for your userpage, go ahead, but it does not belong in the WV stub template. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 17 request to edit West Virginia's shield 

message: Is there any convention for the size of the shields for the three digit highways?  For the roads in the United States anyway, the 2 digit highways are all 20px in size.  However, the three digit highway disambiguation pages seem to be a mix of 20px and 25px, with the occasional image of a different size thrown in there.  From Template:Infobox Maryland highway, a consensus of 25px for the 3 digit route shields has been reached in WP:MDSH, with the logic being that the larger shields needed for the 3 digit routes result in squished signs when viewed at 20px.  For instance, consider the shield for Maryland Route 355.  At 20px, it looks like this:, and at 25px, it looks like this: .  Looking at a shield for I-270, we have  at 20px and  at 25px.  This consensus has been around for awhile on the Maryland wikiproject, and I was wondering if any sort of consensus existed at the national level.  As I mentioned, the Lists of highways numbered XXX seem to all have a different standard as to the size of these shields.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravensfan5252 (talk • contribs) 
:20px for 2 digit and 25px for 3 digit. —Scott5114↗ 07:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I saw to use 20px somewhere.  The infobox example uses 20px and implies that this should always be used but does not state this.  But for the road section it says use 25x20px.  Shields is silent on this.  If we are going to change, I would suggest going with 25px since the 20px is too small on many screen and resolutions.  Vegaswikian 07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Per WP:USRD/INNA, 2-digit shields are 20px wide and 3-digit shields are 25px wide. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 11:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, the idea is to have all the shields the same height (20px), the square shields are easy, 20px wide, the wider shields need to be 25 px wide in order to be 20px high.  --Holderca1 13:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. As for shields that get placed in ... it appears to have gravitated to 70px/88px, but this is not uniform across all templates. (See Tri-State Tollway). —Rob (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So for dab pages, we should use 20px and optionally for 3 digit shields 20px25px?  Using this on the sample above we would get  and not  or . Or am I getting the parameters wrong? Vegaswikian 00:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need both values; only length, so it's .  Is that what you're asking? --MPD T / C 00:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is what I was asking. Thanks.  Vegaswikian 03:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of highways numbered XXX 

message: There is a current AFD for Vermont Street, San Francisco. —Scott5114↗ 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD debate which may be of interest 

message: I have nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ridge Route. --NE2 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC for Ridge Route 

message: From a discussion with TMF and myself on IRC:
TwinsMetsFan: you may also want to check out the CA talk pages you edited yesterday
TwinsMetsFan: a ton of editors readded the WP:CA tags
vishwin60: and it's not needed
TwinsMetsFan: tell them that
vishwin60: in fact, while they readded the WP CA tags, did they have an edit summary?
TwinsMetsFan: yeah
TwinsMetsFan: "Re-added WP:CAL tag; rated B, Low (please see talkpage discussion - co-existing tags are allowed on the related California projects"
TwinsMetsFan: also, this issue should be brought up at USRD
TwinsMetsFan: mutliple states use the SH tag for intrastate routes as well
vishwin60: ok, this will become WP:USRD policy...
vishwin60: only one project tag allowed on USRD talk pages
vishwin60: unless if it's HAR or something like that
Yeah, related.  Sure, the article is within WP:CA scope, but it's more in WP:USRD scope, or in this case, WP:CASH scope.  Also, the talk page looks messy as well when state tags are placed there.  Furthermore, practically nobody from the state projects even edit the road articles.  My proposal is to remove any state tags found on articles, regardless if they classify USRD projects as related.  Sometimes, other USRD tags, like in Talk:Pennsylvania Route 39, are needed, as that article is in both WP:PASH and WP:HbgAR.  Also, the regional tags would be kept as well, such as in Talk:Interstate 80 in California.  Comments?  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand what's going on here. Background on the problem? --Sable232 17:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I fail to see why this is within the scope of WP:CA.  While I have mixed feelings about what I'm about to suggest, have we considered the approach taken by some projects like WP:AVIATION where they use a common banner that supports all of their children projects?  Results in a larger banner, but fewer banners.  In the case of a road, you would still have the issue of maybe two parents.  However the suggested solution could solve that by designing our combined template to also support an appropriate state road project.  That would still leave the state out, except for its being the parent of the state road project.  While this could be a concern it could still be addressed in the combined template, however I don't believe that would be necessary.  Vegaswikian 19:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of making them smaller. --MPD T / C 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could make them small by default, with a show/hide button to expand each one, like the "Article milestones" template? Krimpet (talk/review) 19:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple project tags 

message: I have made a USRD-related color palette available on my personal website. (Commons won't let me upload it.) You can download it at http://www.denexa.com/roadgeek/usrd.gpl . This palette includes the MTF-specified map legend colors, as well as the six MUTCD colors. 
To install in Inkscape, save the .gpl file to the the "palettes" subfolder in Inkscape's folder. (On Ubuntu, this is /usr/share/inkscape/palettes.) You will then be able to pick "USRD" from the list of palettes, accessed by clicking the arrow on the right side of the palette ribbon. In GIMP, save the file to the "palettes" subfolder in GIMP's folder. (On Ubuntu, /usr/share/gimp/2.0/palettes.) You can then open the palettes dialog (Ctrl+P) and double-click "USRD" to open the palette.
Let me know what you think, if you have any other colors you think I should include, and also if you find any errors. —Scott5114↗ 07:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Windows, this is C:\Program Files\Inkscape\share\palettes\. —Scott5114↗ 14:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: excellent work man! -- master_sonTalk -  Edits 15:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inkscape/GIMP USRD palette available 

message: Is there any reason as to why the highways listed in List of highways numbered 100 are different than those listed in any of the other disambiguation pages?  This diambiguation page has a table, whereas the others simply have lists.  In my opinion, this page seems cleaner than the standard format of these articles, such as List of highways numbered 66, but it seems odd that only route 100 has the table.  Jason Smith 08:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, must be someone trying something out. To perhaps make it even more clean, I've removed the wikitable class, leaving the table "invisible" -- look better or worse to you guys?—Scott5114↗ 09:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since these are mainly dab pages, I consider this to be a style issue.  The simple list is what is used on all dab pages and I think it is all we need here.  Why add the overhead, coding and processing, to have a table when a simple list does the job? Vegaswikian 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, how about we get all of these created, all the redirects created prior to messing around with the style.  --Holderca1 18:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixing one is not a lot of work.  Fixes many after that one is copied to other pages, is more work.  If the consensus is to follow the others as the guideline, then this one should be changed. If consensus changes, it will be easy to revert the changes back to the table. Vegaswikian 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We just 10 pages that look like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Redirects/National/000-099, not to mention that the majority of those are incomplete.  I just think that this part of the dab pages is a more pressing need. --Holderca1 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone said to put redirects on the dab pages.  --Holderca1 01:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...all the redirects created prior to messing around with the style." Unless I missed something, I don't understand what redirects this comment refers to. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume he means all the "Highway X" and "Route X" redirects. --Sable232 02:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly what I meant, the redirects found on the link that I included above.  --Holderca1 02:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we need to either create shields for every route on a dab page, or just get rid of them.  But I think the full name is fine.  --MPD T / C 02:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, but we have some international routes that don't have shields, do we want to worry about those at the moment since it doesn't even fall under this project or just clean up the US sections?  --Holderca1 10:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  Since it's split up into countries, right now I'd say just US.  To have shield after shield then suddenly no shield followed by shield after shield doesn't look good.  So...we need to work on shielding those routes.  The list of 100s, it seems to be only Texas' shields that are missing, list of 66s is missing many, but all the international routes have shields (at least).  --MPD T / C 17:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started working on that last night. I'll keep going as I have time. --Sable232 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also know that some routes are missing from the list entirely, I will put this on my todo list.  --Holderca1 22:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What exactly was Maryland Route 1?  Was it a historical road?  Was it simply co-named with US 1? Vegaswikian 19:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: U.S. Route 1 in Maryland#History...  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 19:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the link should be to US1 in Maryland, as it is now, however should it be to the main article or the history section? No need to reply, just change it if needed. Vegaswikian 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of highways numbered 100 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volusia County Road 4164 --NE2 03:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I wish that it hadn't been withdrawn.  At some point we have to reach a consensus on whether county highways have the same notability that state highways do. -- NORTH talk 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends. Some places, county roads are really important. I don't think we have any notability guidelines on the issue, either. —Rob (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it will vary by state I think, for the most part, the county roads in Texas are not very notable, if they are even paved. :) --Holderca1 13:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After giving it a couple seconds more thought, notability should be decided by each state wikiproject. Each state may have to go through each county on a per-county basis. I know Kane County county highways are so unimportant as to not even receive a mention in Wikipedia, whereas at least DuPage County has a list. —Rob (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea, but the state projects don't have much autonomy as of late.  For example, what is the difference between the Kentucky WP and the Kentucky task force, not much that I can see.  --Holderca1 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This will need to be considered at a more local level. In NY, the county roads tend to be the main ones that have reasonably high traffic with only 2 lanes. But does that make them notable?  Here in Nevada we have CC-215 that will be a 10 lane road, quite notable.  So there can not be a blanket notability statement.  Maybe a simple expansion of the guideline would work? Vegaswikian 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think that a seperate article would be needed in that example, Clark County 215 should redirect (as it does) to Interstate 215 (Nevada), not have a seperate article.  --Holderca1 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw no point in listing Wisconsin's county highways - I just created a blanket article to cover it.  They're all essentially back roads as it is.  An article about the history of the highways (as a whole) to me is suffice enough. -- master_sonTalk -  Edits 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: I just ran across Wikipedia:Dead external links. You might want to page through there and look for articles from your states. —Scott5114↗ 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check for 404s on your pages 

message: First whoever had the bright idea of using the IRC to put some states over others needs to have thier head examined.  I spent several days waiting for responses and caused me to lose interest in doing work in my own state road project.  I do not care to be part of the full US road project since guess what I live in Michigan and dont travel outside of the state so I see no need to be part of larger group at this time.  I read all of the comments and not only did they make assumtions with states they totally missed the ball on others they promoted over other states.  Frankly I find this unwiki like attitude of a few over the hundreds that are working on this project.  Most people that share input on the roads do not pay attention to the project pages unless thier is a new formatting change and will address the change then.  Its not fair to all of a sudden say the way this state and this state was doing things is wrong and not have a discussion on it.  
Another issue I am having is people put comments for clean up without doing any further explanation on the talk page.  I am going to stress this now if people put clean up tags on a section put a comment on the talk page to say exactly what is wrong with the section.  Just a generic tag is pointless as it will get ignored and not fixed if anything I may just delete the tag if I see nothing wrong.  --Mihsfbstadium 12:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the cleanup tag, what needs attention should be mentioned on the tag itself.  See the cleanup tag on Texas State Highway 74, the last line states what needs to be cleaned up.  If the individual tagging the article does not mention in the tag or the talk page what needs cleaning up, by all means remove it if you don't see any glaring problems.  It's not your responsiblity to figure out what the other person was thinking.  --Holderca1 12:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that you fully understand what is going on. Please do not make personal attacks against other users, furthermore. IRC is used to collaborate nationwide. All editors at USRD and subprojects are welcome to join. However, you are not required to join, but you will not be able to give input on some discussions. How is this an unwikilike attitude? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the resident anti-IRC person, I feel the need to point out that "you will not be able to give input on some discussions" is how it's an unwikilike attitude.  However, the status page is the sort of behind-the-scenes collaboration that is perfect for discussion on IRC.  As someone said on the talk page there, no changes are being implemented directly as a result of the status page, it's just a guide so that we can see where work needs to be done.  Consensus isn't required to put up a status page; now that it's up we can discuss it and tweak the rating system and the like. -- NORTH talk 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  North I would agree with you on that but I already changed the Status of Michigan twice.  Its not in need of dire help.  To give an example, Indiana needs a ton more attention than Michigan does.  And guess what it is not bolded at all.  Thats what bothers me more than anything else.  As for the IRC channel if you can find in the Wiki site that is how we are to coloberate and not on the talk pages then feel free to provide that to me.  I prefer to use the talk pages since we all use diffrent work schedules.  Its quite unwiki to say if you want to input you have to use IRC at a certian time and date when most of use this as a hobby and nothing more.  And just an arbitury not compliant phrase for what needs work is quite stupid IMHO.  The reason for the tag is that something is not compliant.  So why list it twice is my feeling.  I am just saying right now that I would prefer people to use the tags with info other than non compliance since its saying the same thing twice.  --Mihsfbstadium 06:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few comments 

message: Can anyone tell me the point of this page other than it listing out all the Wikiprojects?  It hasn't been update by a bot since November and to be honest I have never found it useful.  Where does the bot pull its information?  I know we have a lot more than 10 articles needing cleanup (technically only 1 of those listed under cleanup even falls under this project), etc...
If someone finds it useful or thinks it can be fixed to make it useful, by all means lets keep it, but personally I think it just clutters up the project pages.  --Holderca1 16:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 110% agreed. -- NORTH talk 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As I've cleaned up project pages, I've been removing it, so no argument here. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah remove it. I don't get why it's there... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Highways]] 

message: I placed it up for MfD.  No senese in keeping it if we find it useless.  --myselfalso 21:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention/Highways]]

message: I'd like to add my own 2¢ in here.
First off, IRC is a useful tool for managing projects such as this, yes. People without IRC are at somewhat of a disadvantage. Nevertheless, though, keep in mind that not everyone can access it: what if you're browsing on a set-top box, or don't have privileges to install an IRC client, or you're behind a draconian web filter that blocks IRC traffic? Not to mention, of course, time issues.
However, there's technically nothing against the rules with deciding things on IRC; one of the primary rules of Wikipedia is be bold (and IAR). Anyone can decide anywhere what they're going to edit, that's the way wikis work. If you want to build consensus for changes on IRC, go ahead, be bold and do it.
However, many people have stated their objections to solely building consensus on IRC. While not required per se, it would certainly be nice to let their objections be heard, perhaps by at least announcing planned changes from IRC at least a day or two before carrying them out. (I like the idea of a "Proposals" subpage.)
I think the biggest problem is that everyone is going for each other's throats here. Keep cool, stay civil, assume good faith, and let's work out a solution that's best for everyone. Krimpet (talk/review) 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use IRC as a central committee which puts out ideas born in the IRC discussion. Take this to a (suggestion:) WT:USRD/Proposals page and let the project as a whole decide on the proposed change.  --myselfalso 00:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Krimpet, "The Wikipedia channels on freenode are an unofficial place for Wikipedians to chat using IRC. As far as their influence on Wikipedia goes, IRC is equivalent to e-mail, or a conversation in a pub: chat is a private conversation which, in ordinary circumstances, has no effect on how one is treated on Wikipedia." seems to indicate that IRC should not be used for any official discussion, ie setting policies. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 01:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you have a problem with people who don't want to use IRC but want to be invovled? People come here to be on wikipedia, not IRC. Our edits are here, and policy and decisions need to be made here where others can put in their input. Policy decisions here are a democracy, and by taking the decision off site you take away the ability for anyone to input. We are showing we want our voices heard because we feel if its moved IRC it will not be heard. Once again, non consensus leaves the status quo, to leave policy making discussions on Wikipedia. I think discussions of policy and ideas and such are fine, but a decision needs to be left to the people, and thats what I think the ones disagreeing with the Pro-IRC crowd are afraid of. You say most don't happen on IRC, I think they want all decisions not made on IRC is the goal Uhg, headache. I'm tired, excuse any errors there. Feedloadr 03:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to agree with Feeloadr here. I have no objection to IRC being used to shape discussion or come up with ideas, but final sign off on ideas, especially large ones, needs an on wiki consensus. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 05:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know why we keep discussing it. The consensus and vast majority seems to support no IRC for important decision from what I can see in this and the previous discussion. I'm only seeing 3 users who support IRC for decision making at all and only 2 who support it for major decision making. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section break #2 

message: Eh, let me name a section after myself while I watch the Gators finish thrashing the Buckeyes.
*As I've said before, I'm 100% in agreement with Myselfalso.  I am not against IRC being used for discussion.  IRC should be used for discussion.
*IRC cannot be used for building consensus.  It's just a physical impossibility.  That being said, Krimpet did have some valid points.  People should not be afraid to be bold.  If you want to discuss something on IRC and then implement it (i.e. the maint parameter in infobox road), go ahead and do it.  However, be prepared to then discuss it on-wiki if someone objects.  That's the way the flowchart on Wikipedia:Consensus works.
*I'm not familiar with the Mozilla IRC channel Vishwin used as an example, but I think I can still answer the question.  Mozilla is not Wikipedia, meaning that it does not have seeking consensus as one of its five pillars.  That being said, just because we can't change policy on IRC doesn't mean the channel won't be successful.  I think the March 16th meeting was very successful.    It took a while for people to get fully behind the status page, but I think for the most part we are now, and that will become an important tool in taking this project for the next level.
*IRC is important for doing things that need to be taken care of instantaneously, like the revert war during the I-238 discussion.  IRC is a Good Thing when used correctly.
*Keep in mind that there are no leaders of the U.S. Roads WikiProject.
Ta-ta for now. -- NORTH talk 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what you said. I was working on my response the same time. I just mutlitasked and it took longer. I echo your sentiments.Feedloadr 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Northenglish