Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/New York/Archive 2

message: While making a table for NY 5 tonight, I did as suggested and labeled every template with subst: as I went. When I did a "checkpoint" save, I noticed that the US and NY templates substituted correctly but the Interstate one did not (as it resulted in a poorly coded if: command being inserted; however, the link still worked, amazingly). Hopefully someone with better knowledge of coding can develop a workaround on that template (located at Template:NYSRInt/IN). --TMF T - C 06:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subst: the IN template shortcut

message: I'm burned out adding all of the PA entries in List of crossings of the Susquehanna River.  The remaining sections that need additions, verification (scan for missing crossings) and table formatting are all in NY.  Stictly speaking we're looking for more than just NY state route bridges, but I figured this would be a likely place to appeal for help.  I've been using the USGS aerial photos at terraserver-usa to scan for crossing, google maps and mapquest to ID the crossing, and topozone for the .  Click on the coordinates on one of the already listed crossings to access. aTdHvAaNnKcSe.--J Clear 00:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request help with Susquehanna crossings 

message: All Interstate and U.S. routes, past and present, now have the NY browse box. Because of this, US and Interstate routes in the Infobox road browse have now been enabled for New York. --TMF T - C 12:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Route Browse

message: I added counties the the NY 30 infobox today, but thinking the entire time "How much is too much?" Should we limit the number of counties that are listed, and if we do, should we only list cities for routes that exceed this number (i.e. NY 5)? --TMF T - C 21:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Counties in Infobox

message: I see that there are some pages that are currently tagged for having obsloete infoboxes like New York State Route 107, as well as some others I didn't create. Is anybody working on new routeboxes and intersection boxes for these roads right now? --DanTD 14:35, 4 August 2006 (EST)
:Not sure. Maybe they're on break due to the ... madness happening at highways now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  19:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eventually, I'll get to them if no one takes care of them. I have more time now than I did the previous few days, but the mess going on at Highways is leaving me a bit uneasy. --TMF T - C 21:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Routebox/Infobox discussion, part 4(or is it part 5?) 

message: A proposal came up on WT:USRD recently about using Werdnabot to automatically archive the talk pages of state road WikiProjects. Would anyone have any objections to using Werdnabot for this project (as I personally think it's a good idea)? --TMF T - C 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a big fan of Werdnabot.  It clutters up my watchlist.  Powers T 20:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due apologies, I don't see that being a reason for not using the auto-archive bot. The cons (having this page appear every time an archival is made) are outweighed by the advantages (hassle-free archiving and trimming down the length of this page, as well as removing obsolete discussions). --TMF T - C 02:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with you if manual archiving was difficult.  For pages like User talk:Jimbo Wales, sure; the activity level is high enough that werdnabot is useful.  But for a page like this, manually archiving every month or two seems sufficient to me.  Powers T 13:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I had 60 days in mind as the time limit for the bot, so it wouldn't clutter up the watchlists of users that much. I dunno, I'm personally in favor of the bot (as it's one less task that needs to be performed) and I'd like to hear the opinions of others on this issue as well. --TMF T - C 01:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears User:Rschen7754 didn't notice this discussion, or didn't care, and set up auto-archiving anyway.  I'm still against it; the time limit has no bearing on how often Werdnabot archives, only on how long a section stays before being archived.  It's the former to which I object.  Powers T 14:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All valid points. I've taken down the auto-archive (if we elect to restore it later, it'll still be in the edit history). It already did one archive, but no harm came to be as most of those sections would've been moved in the next manual archive. Again, I'd really like to hear the opinion of the other members of the project as well so we can come to a group consensus. --TMF T - C 04:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack my bad. Sorry about that, I forgot about this discussion. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  16:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Auto-archiving

message: The current standard for the project uses the heading "Towns along the route" for the listing of all towns, villages and cities along the route. Stepp-Wulf made a change to New York State Route 350 today, changing "towns" to "communities". Instead of reverting the change, it made me think for a bit and, I've come to the conclusion that "Communities" makes the most sense between the two. I would not use "Locations" because this would over-broaden the section and would allow users to list everything from towns to parks to tourist attractions, which is not the purpose of the section.
What does everyone think? Should we keep it at "Towns along the route" or should we change it to "Communities along the route" or some equivalent? --TMF T - C 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess residents of the state don't really refer to the town but rather the hamlet (if the don't live in a city or village). "Communities" is probably ok and putting hamlets is probably more useful to the reader. However, hamlets don't have well-defined boundaries and makes deciding exactly where a junction is  more difficult for some cases. --Polaron | Talk 01:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In most cases, the hamlet is defined by the junction, so I don't think there's an unacceptable level of confusion there.  =)  "Communities" seems the best catchall term for town(ship)s, villages, cities, and hamlets.  Powers T 14:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location list header 

message: Your state is invited to participate in discussions for its highway naming convention. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. If you already have a convention that follows the State Name Type xx designation, it is possible to request an exemption as well. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2]]

message: Lately, I've been making junction tables for numerous WikiProjects that have a significantly different look than the one used here at WP:NYSR. Examples of these tables can be found at Pennsylvania Route 18 and State Route 14 (Ohio), as well as a modified intra-county table at County Route 380 (Chautauqua County, New York). See WP:PASH, WP:OHSH, and WP:NYCR for the coding behind these tables.
With that said, I actually prefer this design over the one currently used here at WP:NYSR and WP:VR. Should we adopt the new design used at PASH and OHSH or should we stay with the current junction table? --TMF T - C 17:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it looks more professional.  I worry that the county/location columns take up too much space, but I think it's useful to have them in-line with the junctions.  I'd also rather have the mile markers in the first column, but that wouldn't look good with the multi-row county and town columns in between the mile markers and the route column.  Powers T 15:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redone the junction table for New York State Route 153 using Template:NYint. If no one objects in the next few days, I'll begin using NYint instead of NYSRInt as I convert articles to the current standard. --TMF T - C 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's something weird going on.  The table doesn't look right in Firefox.  Powers T 14:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's likely the Gecko renderer acting up. I use Firefox myself and sometimes the row/column/both borders don't show up, especially when Wikipedia is busy. Other times, it appears fine. It's an odd but well-documented (on numerous other talk pages) glitch in Firefox. --TMF T - C 21:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The junction table 

message: See Talk:List of State Routes in New York. --TMF T - C 19:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganizing the [[List of State Routes in New York]] 

message: I noticed that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the Seaway Trail.  Would such an article fall under the jursidiction of this WikiProject?  Here's a web site for those who may not be familiar with it: .  Powers T 13:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a reason why it wouldn't, since the Seaway Trail is composed of state routes, county routes, and local routes, so, by default, the article would fall under both WP:NYSR and WP:NYCR (in the same way that Ridge Road does), IMO. On a personal note, I'd enjoy seeing an article created for it. Also, is the Seaway Trail shield on Wikipedia/Commons yet? If not, I'll create it. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A question though: would the Seaway Trail shield be a logo or just another shield? If it's a logo, then I'd have to upload the shield as a small PNG; otherwise, I'd upload it as an SVG I created this morning. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 14:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that it is owned by the non-profit Seaway Trail, Inc., and thus not in the public domain, if that affects your decision.  Powers T 03:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it'd have to be a low-res PNG then... --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Shield uploaded as :Image:Seaway Trail.png. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Here it is in context.  =)  Powers T 18:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seaway Trail 

message: In most junction/exit lists, the Lake Ontario State Parkway is listed as just "Lake Ontario" with the shield and a link to the correct article.  Despite the presence of the shield, I think this is too confusing for the reader.  While it follows the convention for other state parkways, the major difference is that residents rarely say "Take the Lake Ontario to..." whereas they might say that for other state parkways.  Might we come up with an alternative wording?  Powers T 13:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I'm the one that started using "Lake Ontario", I completely agree. Perhaps "Lake Ontario Pkwy" would be better? That way, it's clear that we're referring to the parkway, not the lake it parallels. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lake Ontario Pkwy" would be fine, I think, though I wouldn't want to go through and change all of them.  =)  Powers T 19:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to AWB, I was able to quickly change the links to read "Lake Ontario Pkwy". In the process, I was also able to carry out a ton of fixes on virtually every NYS route article (including infobox coding fixes, shield fixes, etc.). I apologize if I clogged up anyone's watchlist. =) --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lake Ontario State Parkway in junction lists 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 22:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory