Talk:U.S. Route 17

message: It seems to me that 17 must cross St. Johns River somewhere near Jacksonville, Florida but I couldn't find such a bridge.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It crosses at Palatka and again at Sanford. --NE2 17:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Johns River 

message: The article previously indicated that US 17 crossed into North Carolina via the Little River Bridge.  The Little River Bridge is entirely within South Carolina...the crossing into North Carolina is land-based just north of the town of Little River, SC, while the bridge is south of the town.  This is based on personal research and knowledge of the area (I travel through this area frequently).  I have corrected the main article and will correct the US 17 in SC article shortly.  MarkINFD (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Carolina/North Carolina Border 

message: Per WP:USRD/A, an article such as this with a route description, a history section and a junction list section is C-Class. None of the Big Three sections are so lacking as to be discounted from the assessment. Yes, we'd like to see more citations added, but that's the difference between C and B. Imzadi 1979 →  16:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit box you get when you edit says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". So instead of mucking about with templates, you need to make sure the content is well written and accurately cites sources. It's pretty standard throughout the encyclopedia. You wouldn't get away with this on an Israeli-Palestine conflict article, that's for sure! Now I'm off to improve some other article, have a nice life.  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "verifiable", which is different from "verified". One presumes that sources exist, even if they aren't cited, and the other requires that they be cited. Imzadi 1979 →  17:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think TenPoundHammer said it best here. I'm not one to go around chopping out large sections of articles just because it doesn't have a ref tag on the end of them, but it does mean that saying the article is a bit shit is fair comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: USRD's assessment scheme, below B-Class, has always been a bit unique. We get that, but it's intentional and based on article structure. Any highway article should have the Big Three: Route description, History, junction/exit list. If it has all three, it's C-Class. If it only has two, it's Start-Class. If it only has one, or lacks defined sections, it's Stub-Class. If it has all three, and each section is good shape (basic citations, decent prose, etc), then that's when it gets looked at for a bump to B-Class. That's just how the project has done it for the better part of a decade. (Before C-Class was introduced, B-Class was the assessment for articles with all of the Big Three, regardless of relative quality.)So as crazy as it sounds, this article is C-Class for USRD. It can be Start-Class for every other project in Wikipedia, and there's really no requirement that projects agree on assessment. Just the other day, it was Stub-Class for WP:WPGEO and C-Class for USRD. Imzadi 1979 →  17:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you listen to anything I said or did you just decide to pontificate like a Conservative Party politican? I half expected you to say "strong and stable" in amongst that waffle. Now, where did I put my pint of Hop House 13? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  is it any good? I can't say I've seen it stateside. –Fredddie™ 18:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I like it :-) ... the hops are partly sourced from the US, and Diageo have been campaigning to ship it worldwide; I can see sources confirming its availability in Ireland, the UK and Korea. It must be available somewhere stateside. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

text:  I don't understand. If USRD wants to assess an article internally a certain way, then how does that harm Wikipedia? --Rschen7754 00:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Rschen7754, it's a bit of a slippery slope, wouldn't you say? While one has to support the idea of a work group having their own standards and ways of doing things internally, that seems (in this case, anyway) to lead to a type of Balkanization with other Projects, promoting a form of ownership mentality, and the desire to exclude other viewpoints...as we have just seen here. So one tries to protect the USRD desire for internal standards, while reminding them to play nice with others. Just a little wrap on the knuckles, nothing heavy handed, by Ritchie333, seems to be a measured and moderate response. Gulbenk  (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In my case, it's more frustration from being (apparently) not understood. Above, Imzadi says "So as crazy as it sounds" - if it sounds crazy, don't do it! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment for USRD 

message: It appears that a certain user has taken it upon themselves to delete state Wikiprojects from this article. I understand that there are individual articles for this route, but if the South Carolina Wikiproject is going to get added to articles on people merely born in S.C. (who subsequently moved by the time they were three), there is no reason why this article which has a handful of paragraph's on our state's route doesn't fall under our purview. Why police what other Wikiprojects want to contribute? Silly. Muttnick (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policing of Wikiprojects