Talk:Interstate 15 in Arizona

message: Love the images, but there's too many as is. Need a gallery, or to put some at commons. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many images

message: I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of August 14, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: The article follows the guidelines for good prose.  
:2. Factually accurate?: The references throughout the article are adequate and the in-line citations are in the correct positions.  
:3. Broad in coverage?: The topic covers the broadness very well and summaries the information correctly.  
:4. Neutral point of view?: It expands all regions  of ideas.
:5. Article stability? The article is very stable and does not have constant edit wars. 
:6. Images?: The pictures are well presented in the correct ways.  
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 22:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: We might want to change the images; the two Cedar Pocket ones are very similar. We should probably move them to Commons too so we can link to the others. --NE2 14:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't noticed that, I guess the clouds made it look different.  I know there were more images in this article earlier on and I removed some of the for a better layout.  I will check to see if those are better.  I agree on moving them to the Commons, isn't there a bot or something that will that for us if we just tag the images?  --Holderca1 talk 18:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no bot. There are a couple of scripts out there to semi-automate the process. I use Wikipedia:Commons_helper, it's not that bad.Dave (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: There's a potentially interesting alternative picture in the Virgin River Gorge article -  --Kvng (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I-15 wouldn't be Transcontinental as stated in the first line, seeing as it runs north south and not east west across the continent.  If anything it is trans-national. Bigal888 (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Transcontinental means crossing a continent, the name doesn't specify which direction the continent has to be traversed, so transcontinental seems justified. --86.173.140.26 (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it would have to go from southern Mexico to Northern Canada to be transcontinental. How does crossing a third of the continent count as being transcontinental? Bigal888 (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Transcontinental 

message: A couple users have reverted my edits to the exit list and the mileage length.  Maybe these users don't "agree" with these numbers, but I took them directly from ADOT Highway Log  so I don't see how there can be a dispute from them.  At the bottom of page 99, it clearly states "29.39" for the total number of miles.  It has been reverted to 29.3 and I'm not sure why, since this source clearly indicated otherwise.  All my changes have been clearly cited - I would not make such changes without a citation in the first place.  The mile marker for exits 9 and 18 have also been reverted.  The log says the following:
Exit             	On-ramp marker	Off-ramp marker
Farm Rd (9)      	9.83          	10.03
Cedar Pocket (18)	18.32         	18.60
I don't see how the mile marker for these exits can be higher or lower than these numbers since the interchange can't take place before or after the on-/off-ramps.  If there is a source that does say otherwise, then cite it properly, which does not mean to add a hidden comment next to the information. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, this is not new. When Interstate 70 in Utah was on the main page, a similar thing occurred. In that case UDOT publishes everything to 3 decimal places (i.e. 12.345) in their milage logs. I did have people reverting claiming false precision or "no way can someone measure that accurate", even though the figures were cited to the official UDOT logs. Then we have the other extreme with roads articles, a certain set of editors suffering from some kind of OCD disorder who spend far more time edit warring with each other over every minute detail in the exit lists then contributing actual content. Welcome to the project!!!! =-) Dave (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, for the record. In UDOT and CDOT logs, the mileposts of the bridges are given, so I haven't had to deal with this. I just used the figures for the bridge. However, I think what you did is appropriate. I would, frankly, pick a milage figure of a feature known to be part of the interchange (on-ramp, off-ramp, or bridge) or split the difference between the two. Dave (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I did.  I average the difference for the on- and off-ramp and used that at the mile marker for the junction as seen here.  But of course, an editor had to revert both edits (for this and the one for the highway length) stating they were both uncited.  Did they not see the little ref number- next to it?  I don't know.  But using a hidden comment as a citation was just a little out there. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

text: In reference to the UDOT and CDOT logs, the ADOT logs do give bridge mileposts as well.  But there were 2 issues here.  Exit 9 (Farm Rd) is a right-in/right-out intersection, so there's no grade-separated interchange with an over/underpass.  Therefore, only the ramp mile markers are given.  Now at Exit 18 (Cedar Pocket), the northbound off-ramp is given marker number 18.06, and the northbound on-ramp is given marker number 18.32.  However, the crossing for the exit is given 18.33, so I'm confused as to how the overpass for this exit has a higher number than both ramps.  This is why I just did the average.  Take a look at the ADOT log and see for yourself and maybe you can figure it out better than I can. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I would do the following, if taking the average of the onramp and offramp is not acceptable, what I would then do is record the figure for the first offramp in the direction of milepost procession (i.e. Northbound in this case) Dave (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length and mileage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Interstate 15 in Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616215809/http://tpd.az.gov/mpd/data/Reports/PDF/2009SHSLog.pdf to http://tpd.az.gov/mpd/data/Reports/PDF/2009SHSLog.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080711120044/http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE72/htm/72_04_020100.htm to http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE72/htm/72_04_020100.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506091719/http://www.canamex.org/CanaMexUSA.asp to http://www.canamex.org/CanaMexUSA.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 15 in Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904202357/http://www.azhighwaydata.com/engineeringrecs/search.asp?Road=%20%20I%20015&BKMP=&EKMP=&Show=False&Tracs=&Fed= to http://www.azhighwaydata.com/engineeringrecs/search.asp?Road=%20%20I%20015&BKMP=&EKMP=&Show=False&Tracs=&Fed=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016224211/http://imgis.nps.gov/Geocortex/Viewer/NPS/Viewer.html?Viewer=National%20Historic%20Trails to http://imgis.nps.gov/Geocortex/Viewer/NPS/Viewer.html?Viewer=National%20Historic%20Trails
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified