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

message: Should a mega-article be created with redlinks to all of the business routes present in Maryland? At the moment, there are at least six:
* U.S. Route 1 Business (Bel Air, Maryland)
* U.S. Route 13 Business (Pocomoke City, Maryland)
* U.S. Route 13 Business (Salisbury, Maryland)
* U.S. Route 15 Business (Emmitsburg, Maryland)
* U.S. Route 50 Business (Salisbury, Maryland)
* U.S. Route 113 Business (Snow Hill, Maryland)
-TheOneKEA
:No, keep them as they are, and in fact, create those pages.  Just make sure they are not in a browse of some sort.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Maryland business routes 

message: Just a heads up, I just created a cleanup template at , since it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to tag long articles as stubs simply because they are missing a section or two.  The stub templates should just be used on short articles.-Jeff (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This template is substandard, it needs to look more like the parent USRD cleanup template.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup template 

message: Like the heading says, users that have been deemed inactive within the U.S. Roads WikiProject (one of this project's parent WikiProjects) have been removed from the participants list.  If you are subscribed to the project newsletter (which everyone is by default) you should have gotten notice that this was going to happen.  In case you didn't know though and are still active, make sure you weren't erroneously removed from the list.-Jeff (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were, contact Rschen7754.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 02:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive users removed from participants list 

message: Is there any desire amongst the WikiProject participants to work on this article? The fact that U.S. 40 is nearly 231 miles long, most of it multiplexed with I-70, means that the junction list alone would take up almost all of the article's content. Would it be better to concentrate on getting the other U.S. route articles fully fleshed out first? -TheOneKEA (20070611 18:44)
:I don't know exactly what to do about the junction list, perhaps limit the rest to really major junctions, if we listed the lesser junctions, the article size could get huge fast.  It's definitely worth creating, especially considering it's the longest route in Maryland .  I'll go ahead and at least give it a start.  U.S. Route 40 in Maryland-Jeff (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Route 40 in Maryland 

message: I added a photo of an interchange to two articles (Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) and Interstate 295 (District of Columbia)), but I'm not 100% sure if I got the description and localization right. I'm sure you all know better, so please do check my guesses... Thanks. --AndreasPraefcke 12:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I-495/I-95 - I-295 

message: Since there is no Baltimore WikiProject I'm asking this here. Does anybody know when the original North Avenue Bridge over Jones Falls opened? I know it was rebuilt in the 1890s, but there was an earlier one. Thank you. --NE2 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General question about Baltimore

message: I decided to clean up some Maryland infoboxes, including those listed on User:vishwin60/Roads/MD. In the process, I replaced template:infobox Maryland highway with template:infobox road. I was reverted on several articles: . Is there a reason why the Maryland template should be preferred? The only "advantage", if it can be called that, I can see with infobox Maryland highway is that you don't have to specify the state parameter - you use "infobox Maryland highway" rather than "infobox road|state=MD". On the other hand, using the state-specific templates means that whenever a new parameter, like maint, is added, it needs to be added to each of the state infoboxes before it can be used. --NE2 21:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with NE2, Infobox Road seems to be the most logical template to use.  --myselfalso 23:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, however, have no opinion on this, other to just say that  is perfectly acceptable per WP:USRD/INNA/I. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 23:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: has always been this project's routebox.  It uses  as a backend and therefore is permitted under USRD standards so I see nothing wrong with using it.  There's really no real advantage to using Infobox road over Infobox Maryland highway since adding a new parameter to the state infobox is no more of a chore than adding the new parameter to each article individually.  Besides the state parameter not having to be specified in the state infobox, if type isn't specified, it defaults to MD.  Similarly, length_round defaults to 2 (the precision used in the HLR) if it's not specified.-Jeff (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, consensus can change; please keep that in mind. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Another strong argument to using a state infobox is that if a new parameter is added to Infobox road, the parameter can be easily added to the state infobox and be given a default value (such as the MDSHA default I gave to maint), and all articles in the project will automatically have that value for the new parameter.  All that needs to be done after adding the parameter is to fix it in the few routes that are not maintained by the SHA, instead of adding it to all articles.-Jeff (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this default is a good idea, since someone writing about a route that's not all state-maintained might forget that the maint parameter exists, and make the infobox incorrect. In fact, right now, several articles including MD 26 and MD 139 are incorrect; others may be harder to spot because they don't enter Baltimore (for instance MD 195). --NE2 02:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there any reason to use infobox Maryland highway over infobox road?

message: All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master sonT - C 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates

message: We need to get some kind of consensus on the state name vs. neutered Interstate shield issue.  I've noticed recently that edits are starting to go back and forth on these, as some recent edits show, and the last thing I want to see is this erupt into an edit war.
My thoughts: I personally feel that state-name shields should in no way be used as 20/25px shields, since the larger route number used on neutered shields is more readable at that size.  This especially needs to be considered for people with poor vision.  Also, considering the fact that the state name is impossible to read at that size, there isn't much use in including it anyway.  As for larger shields, as has been pointed out, while both kinds of shields are used in Maryland on various Interstates, neutered shields are more common.  I propose that we use neutered shields on the routeboxes and right-align a state name shield at the top of the route description section as is done with I-95 (perhaps without the caption though).  The state-name shield could serve as a visual reminder to the reader that they are reading a Maryland-specific description.  Comments?-Jeff (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps consider referring to the Maryland SHA Signbook.  The only sign standard I could locate was the neutral M1-1.  In the continual push to reduce sign clutter, simplification of signs is one path: tiny type upon a major arterial is less than ideal. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I made the shields.  While I have seen some state name shields that use a full-size number, I based the shields I made off of the template at the Commons, which I'm assuming is based on the official standard.  So unfortunately, changing the font size will probably lead to some people complaining that they're "not correct".-Jeff (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before this gets out of hand... 

message: I'd be happy to add info for it to the list of minor routes, but I'm not sure how to proceed.  Can I get the graphic somewhere?  Facts are:  Runs from US 40 to Aberdeen Proving Ground.  Total length?  Maybe a mile.PaulTanenbaum 04:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the graphic, put it in as follows: . Replace XXX with the route number, and if the route number is one or two digits, change the 25px to 20px (since the signs for 3-digit routes are wider. You can get the exact length of the route from MDRoads.com (if it's listed there; some routes in the 600/700-range are not), or from the Maryland State Highway Administration's Highway Location Reference documents. - Algorerhythms 04:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that I think of it, on the minor routes list, the graphic size is 45 pixels, not 25 pixels. Easiest way to do it is just to copy another route's entry and replace the text. - Algorerhythms 04:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks. PaulTanenbaum 15:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MD 715 

message: I've been trying to improve Maryland Route 36 and Maryland Route 135 over the past couple weeks, and I'm not sure what to add from here. Any suggestions for how to improve these articles? - Algorerhythms 02:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as project standards go, MD 36 needs a "Cities and towns" section, also the termini section is non-standard and the termini are already listed in the routebox, but it makes a good starting point so I'll leave it for now.  Also, did you make the maps?  If so, they need to be uploaded to the Commons as opposed to Wikipedia, this allows them to be used in any other Wikimedia project that might want to use them.  I went and added a Maps of Maryland state highways category there so make sure they are added to that category when you put them there.  That's all I can think of for now.-Jeff (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the code for the infobox has difficulty with images from Commons. When I tried to change the map to the image on the Commons, the code turned the link into  instead of . - Algorerhythms 14:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the image is on the Commons it can be used directly from Wikipedia as if it were uploaded here so you don't need the commons: part.  As long as the copy at the commons is the same image as the copy here there shouldn't be any problems.  All this really does is allow other Wikimedia projects (such as other language Wikipedias) to access them the same way.  Also, naturally, all future maps will only need to be uploaded to the Commons.-Jeff (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Maryland Route 36|MD 36]] and [[Maryland Route 135|MD 135]] 

message: The Bay Bridge article has been nominated for GA status.  I encourage all members to help it reach GA status, if the reviewer finds any problems, be sure to help fix them!-Jeff (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nomination failed, but with the suggestions given, we can hopefully get it ready for renomination.  If the renom is successful, this project will finally have a GA to its name.-Jeff (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nom for [[Chesapeake Bay Bridge]] 

message: I've noticed that links to former Maryland state highways, for example Maryland Route 37, have become broken so that they currently redirect to a redirect page, so instead of going to the short article about the former state highway, they go to the redirect page and stop there. Fixing every one of these would take a while, but if anyone has access to a bot, that might speed up fixing that. - Algorerhythms 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was because I had to move List of former state highways in Maryland to List of former Maryland state highways to conform to the other lists in this project, in the process that left a bunch of redirects redirecting to a redirect.  I took care of them after moving the page, but fixing that many pages takes time (even for a bot, since they are only allowed to make X number of edits per minute).  They should all be fixed now.-Jeff (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  While y'all have been fighting over "decommissioned" highways... 

message: In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:
# Each project needs to remain aware of developments at WT:USRD and subpages to ensure that each project is aware of decisions / discussions that affect that project. It is impossible to notify every single project about every single discussion that may affect it. Therefore, it is the state highway wikiproject's responsiblity to monitor discussions.
# If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
# USRD, in most to nearly all cases, will not interfere with a properly functioning state highway wikiproject. All projects currently existing are "properly functioning" for the purposes mentioned here. All task forces currently existing are not "properly functioning" (that is why they are task forces). Departments of USRD (for example, MTF, shields, assessment, INNA) may have specific requirements for the state highway wikiprojects, but complaints regarding those need to be taken up with those departments.
# However, this is a reminder that USRD standards need to be followed by the state highway wikiprojects, regardless of the age of the wikiproject.
Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder from USRD

message: I'm uploading a number of photos of roadways primarily in SHA District 3 (MoCo and PG Counties).  Keep an eye on Category:Roads in Maryland over the next several days. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: See here.  It's about streamlining the USRD template with the state WP templates.  --Son (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A discussion at USRD you might be interested in 

message: I'm currently working on an article for U.S. Route 220 in Maryland (which is currently a redirect to U.S. Route 220). The article I have so far is at User:Algorerhythms/220. Any input/corrections/baseball-bats-to-the-cranium/etc. to improve the article before it's put into place would be greatly appreciated. - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a  in there where there should be a , other than that it looks good.-Jeff (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, User:O changed the  to  so the template wouldn't actually appear until the page is put into main space. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The article has been moved to main space. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Route 220 in Maryland 

message: I've completed maps of all of the U.S. highways and (2-digit) Interstate highways in Maryland that have state articles (If I missed any, let me know). I'm going to start on maps of state highways (outside of Garrett and Allegany Counties, which I've already completed). Are there any specific state highways that it might be useful to start with first? - Algorerhythms (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of any.  My only suggestion is to give all the maps a consistent naming convention, this way I can add some code to  that will automatically include the map if it exists so we don't have to specify the parameter manually.  Keep up the good work!-Jeff (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I renamed the images so that all the state highway maps are now "Maryland Route X map.png", the U.S. highway maps are "U.S. X [banner] (MD) map.png", and the Interstate maps are "I-X in MD map.png". I'd have been a bit more consistent than that, but it's a bit of a pain to rename images on Commons, so I was trying to minimize the number of images that needed to be renamed. - Algorerhythms (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps of Maryland state highways 

message: Today, January 31, 2008, marks the 2nd anniversary of the Roads in Maryland WikiProject.  I thought now would be a good time to look back and reflect on how far we've come since then, where we are now, and where we're heading.
On January 31, 2006, there were only a handful of articles about roads in Maryland, USRD was in the middle of a massive collection of edit wars over the naming of articles, Maryland's shields were sparse, and the few shields that we did have were not SVG and were probably created by at least 2 different editors unaware of each other's efforts.  Then came MDRD.  The shields were the first task I took up, and this page served as the perfect place for me to keep others updated on my progress.  At first I only created shields for routes that had articles, but that November, I finished all 1,000 and have since added even more.  In April 2006, a discussion was held here to change the naming convention of articles from "Maryland State Highway X" to something that people actually use.  We decided on the current convention, "Maryland Route X", and ultimately dodged the SRNC bullet as one of the few projects to be declared exempt from the process.  Long before USRD members themselves began questioning whether every single numbered highway was deserving of its own article, we had List of minor Maryland state highways, a list that has served as a model for other states.
Now, fast forward to 2008.  Last October, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge article failed to become the first good article to come out of this project, but I still hope to get at least one promoted.  Algorerhythms has been working on maps, and is now up in the 200s. Another USRD-related arbitration case has started, and serious discussions have begun about reorganizing the project.  2006 and 2007 both saw the creation of several new articles, and we now have almost filled up List of Maryland state highways.  With that, it's time to focus on improving these articles, the best way to do this is to expand stubs and if a stub seems hopelessly unexpandable, consider merging it with the minor routes list.  Another thing to be prepared for is the proposed reorganization of USRD, that will give more responsibility to the state-level projects such as this one.  January might be over, but 2008 is still young, here's hoping it will be a productive year here!-Jeff (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two years later... 

message: I'm currently getting the Chesapeake Bay Bridge article ready for a second GA nom.  It's been vastly improved since its previous nomination, but any input on how it can be further improved or help getting it up to GA standards would be greatly appreciated.-Jeff (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bay Bridge GA nom take two 

message: I've noticed that the introductions in some of the articles of the form U.S. Route X in Maryland are inconsistent with those of most Wikipedia articles, which generally begin with <subject of article> is a <what it is>.  For example, a typical Wikipedia article might begin "The Chesapeake Bay Bridge is a major dual-span bridge in the U.S. state of Maryland." while U.S. Route 301 in Maryland used to begin along the lines of "U.S. Route 301 in Maryland runs from Delaware to the Governor Nice Bridge".  I have since reworded it to "U.S. Route 301 in Maryland is a major highway that runs from Delaware..."  It should also be noted that I found this problem after User:AL2TB actually made the situation worse by rewording the first sentence and changing the bolded term from U.S. Route 301 in Maryland to simply U.S. Route 301.  Not only is this inconsistent with the title of the article but with its topic as well, since the article is on US 301 in Maryland and not US 301 as a whole, and is a violation of WP:LEAD#Bold title.  So a few points I came up with to help fix these articles are:
*The bolded title should reflect the topic of the article and should preferably be consistent with its title.
*As a rule of thumb, the word "is" should generally come after the bolded title, and of course be followed by a description of what the article's subject is.
*Don't be redundant in telling what the subject is, it's not necessary (and is redundant) to say that U.S. Route 301 in Maryland is a U.S. highway or that it is in Maryland, just say that it's a major highway.
If we follow these simple rules, it would be quite easy to make these articles more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and of course the above ideas also apply to Interstate highways.  Comments would be appreciated as I plan on adding this to the editing guide.-Jeff (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd only be convinced if you would change all the bold intros to your version for all highways in California... for example, U.S. Route 50 in California, California State Route 133, Interstate 10 in California, etc... ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing so would be disruptive to the California project, causing unnecessary controversy, just as you've done here. - Algorerhythms (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I just noticed that one of the pages you linked (CA 133) is already in the form that Jeff02 is recommending (Route Name is a highway, etc.) - Algorerhythms (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 01:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: iirc, the controversy with California is that those edits do NOT go with Wikipedia standards.... --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For SR 133 (CA), for example, I also meant to ask, why does the bold heading say State Route 133 and why not California State Route 133? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:USSH; it tells you exactly why. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  <national highway> in Maryland articles 

message: Just to let the other members of this project know, Freewayguy has recently been removing state-name Interstate shields from articles against this project's guideline on shields.  The last time we had a discussion about this, I proposed the current guideline, and no one who took part in the discussion opposed my proposal, so it became a project guideline and the Interstate shield-based reverting stopped.  So what it the opinion of this project's members now?  Should we include state name shields or not?  My personal opinion is to stick with the status quo.-Jeff (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see Freewayguy is now following the guideline so it looks like it was just a misunderstanding.  Nevertheless, of course, this remains open for discussion, as is always true with all of the project's guidelines.-Jeff (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the new sign drawing of the white interstate shield. They don't use specific-state name shield anymore. We can't say now is using which shield and when is using which shield. The pics on interstate-guide only shows when the shield is photo by somebody. They never say when the shield is post. Even if they do; this doesn't mean the shield is made that day, sometimes is just taken off from one place and move to other.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 02:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that the current standard specifies that new shields do not include the state name, but state-name shields still remain a fairly common site in Maryland so I think they should stay.-Jeff (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: That's what happen when we don't get the proper specs. You can't say when it is using what shield and now it is using what shield. Even if the sign is post hat day doesn't mean is made that day. Some shields post in 2000 can date as far back as 1988, or some newly post shields can be very old.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 01:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have an idea, how about we keep using the images of the state-name shields, but mention the years they were made in Maryland in their captions.  That would clarify the fact that Maryland state-name shields are no longer made, but can still be seen along roads.  The only problem is that I don't know when the state-name shields were made.-Jeff (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Nobody actually cares much of independent usages of shields because most people pay attention to the green tour signs anyways, rather than the one hook to silver bars. We don't know how old the shields is because we drive too fast on highways, and also sometimes the shields is just ones taken off and move to another location. Some shields post in 2004 can be as old as 1988.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody actually cares much about whether the state name is in the shield, period. --NE2 10:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It might not matter to most people, but since state-name shields were used in Maryland at one time and can still be seen on the side of the road here, we should at least include an image of them in the articles.  Freewayguy, I understand what you're saying about how we don't know how old a sign is even if it was just posted, that's why I need to know what years Maryland actually made state-name shields, and then I'll be able to put that information in the captions.-Jeff (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Anyways Maryland is shade in black in Interstate-Guide.com--Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we should delete most of the MD state shields except I-595 and I-97 ones.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  The only real reason that we would have to go to that extreme would be to prevent people from using state-name shields in anything but the route description.  While that was a problem in the past, it hasn't really been one since an Interstate shield recommendation was added to the project guidelines.  Also, like I have stated before, Maryland has used state-name shields in the past, so there is nothing inaccurate about having them.  They are here for historical interest and so deleting them would be like deleting :Image:MD Route 2 old.svg.-Jeff (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Almost everywhere the state-specific shields is many like South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Kentucky. They even have more state-specific shields than Maryland, tahts why interstate-guide maps color it magenta (pink-purple). Just state documents no longer applies state-specific shields, and actually the independent use is not that many newer ones. Even the black date print on the back of interstate shields only shows when we bought or post them never shows when is made. For ex. the shields post in 2004 can be as old as 1995. Nobody know how old the shields is even if you see new ones like few weeks ago, doesnt mean is that young. Maryland alot of shields is old and even Georgia (using both types of shields) many state-name shields still exist. Nobody can tell how old the shields is anyways.Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it makes more sense than what we have now.  On a side note, I find it disturbing that Freewayguy has been tagging the shields for speedy deletion, as it's a blatant violation of WP:POINT.-Jeff (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: As for what years state-name signs were made, I don't know.  The best I can come up with is sometime during the '80s-'90s.-Jeff (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine if you can't find it. I had figured that placing the shields in the history section rather than route description would be a good compromise, but I'm not sure if Freewayguy is willing to go along with it... - Algorerhythms (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The discussion's been moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Standards#Use_of_old-style_shields.-Jeff (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree. - Algorerhythms (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interstate shield issue, again