Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Subprojects/Status/Archive 1

message: There is an infobox example on WP:PASH.  --myselfalso 17:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay... go ahead and fix it next time. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Example on [[WP:PASH]] 

message: As far as I can tell every Current Michigan Highway has a map.  Stratosphere did the majority of them I believe.  The only routes without a map or info boxes are the routes that no longer exist.  Beyond this All articles have browse boxes at standards? I am not sure what that means.  I looked at Indiana, one that says they do and it looks the same as Michigan ones unless I am missing something.  Thanks for any comments you can provide me to assist in making the currections.  BTW I thought there was at least 2 to 3 active michigan people.  --Mihsfbstadium 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This means that every route has a browse box per WP:INNA. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather, per WP:USRD/INNA. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: okay let me get this straight so we can move on with the michigan road project.  Every route that we have for Michigan has to have an info box even those that are decominished and no longer a state road.  I just want to make sure I am reading that properly. :D --Mihsfbstadium 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm I wonder if can get a response about the decominished routes.  I checked the page out and didnt see anything that would be a problem.  Next I looked at the talk pages and nothing popped up there either.  So uhm why is Michigan listed as not passing those 3 areas?  Plus the last time I checked I had seen myself, Imzadi1979, Bessert, and Stratosphere working on the Michigan Road Project plus a few others in the past month.  --Mihsfbstadium 18:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Decommissioned routes use  as well, there is a parameter to place the year in which it was decommissioned.  --Holderca1 19:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I just wanted to let you know that by that defination Indiana still is not complaint in any of the areas that Michigan is not either.  Indiana State Road 13 to the last road is spotty for compliance.  If I understand the key properly they have thier project well in hand.  To me it looks like theres is worse off than Michigan.  I am not picking on Indiana because they are just south of Michigan rather they have yes on areas that Michigan has No on and Michigan has most of that info done already so I am trying to get the right setup here.  --Mihsfbstadium 19:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the listed status for Michigan is wrong, just change it. These assessments should probably be made by people active in the particular project anyway. --Polaron | Talk 19:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The assessments on the page are simply starting assessments, often done on a cursory basis. Are the assessments perfect? No. Are changes permitted? Absolutely. Moral: if you are a member of a project and something doesn't look right, don't complain, just fix it. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thats what I did after a few of these wikipedians told me I could.  The problem I have here is the method and the manner several people started this list as.  Instead of actually checking out the pages they just labeled Michigan as having nothing done and needs a ton of work.  Frankly I think Michigan has one of the best laid out and started road Projects.  Some states that are not setup to the same degree currently is labeled as being fine.  Beyond that its also how everybody was not told about this happening.  If you want to get a good consesus you have to do the leg or should we say hand work and notify every state road project that a few people want to build a consensus and then discuss it then.  To do this list after a lot of projects were already started and setup and then call them needing major help when others needed more was not in the best intrest of this project.  Not only did it cause me to get upset with the method, but it also forced me to deal with it first instead of guess what, improving my state.  So please think before you think only a percent of the workers can arbituarly come up system that affects everybody.  Last time I checked we first build a consensus by discussion on Wiki then come out with the result.  --Mihsfbstadium 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your guess is as good as mine, I didn't put this thing together.  I have no idea what compliant means on there, I would think that to get a yes, every article would have to be compliant, not just some.  --Holderca1 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. On Wikipedia, you're supposed to be bold and do what needs to be done, then if someone objects (or reverts), you develop a consensus to see which version is better.  And that's exactly what's going on here.  Someone was bold and put up an assessment page, there are a lot of problems with it, and we're developping a consensus on what the various columns mean and how to more accurately assess the projects. -- NORTH talk 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue I have is how they went about to setup this list.  They did it by having an IRC chat privately off Wiki between 6 people and just through names out there.  For Michigan they just thought it was Strato working on the project and he was gone during the winter.  Instead of looking at the project which they didnt do because there has been 3 to 4 of us working on the Michigan roads.  Thats why I am upset with thier methods.  By not broadcasting the Chat to other Wikis along with not setting up a talk page to discuss this first before making decisions.  It strikes me as not building a consensus because some folks like myself try not to edit lists and what not unless directed otherwise.  --Mihsfbstadium 22:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do make some valid points.  But to be honest, I don't see what the big deal is.  If you only edit Michigan articles, this list probably won't affect your editing behavior.  You obviously already know what needs to be done in your state, and you'll go ahead and do it.  If anything, underrating your project is actually a good thing, because it will make more people come and try to help you out. -- NORTH talk 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm if you like to have work that you yourself helped to put together be called in dire need of help thats great.  But myself I like to get a pat on the back once in a while and frankly that list did nothing to do that after the amount of work the folks in the project has been doing.  Bessert has been doing an awesome job on checking for copyright issues along with some rewrites.  I been creating Michigan related US and Interstate Highway articles plus exit lists and a multitude of other items.  Others I cant seem to remember what thier names are did work before hand to setup the entire project to the current state highway form.  So frankly when a small group comes in and just says it isnt good and needs a lot of work when thier is very little left to do I find it ambigous.  Not to metion the above metioned method of doing it off wiki.  --Mihsfbstadium 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: [edit conflict] No offense, but there are lots of work to be done there.  I commend you for fixing M-x articles, but those changes need to be compliant with the project and WP:USRD, ultimately.  I did lots of fixing to WP:INSR, since their articles are a mess, and I don't get any pats on the back either.  Not to mention that INSR almost got demoted to a task force.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 22:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (tongue in cheek, mostly sarcastic, no offense meant) It's just the nature of working on US roads.  We're a sadistic, masochistic bunch.  The closest thing we have to a pat on the back is member of the month in a newsletter, and even that's usually not well-received.  -- NORTH talk 22:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Then every single state should be bolded.  I know for a fact that most of the state routes in wiki are stubs. Caltrans has well over half of thier routes as stubs and they are one of the better looking projects IMHO. --Mihsfbstadium 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of this.  You are better off if you are bolded, then you are more likely to get help from outside your project.  For example, if I want to work on something, I will work on something from a bolded state before I work on something from an unbolded state. --Holderca1 15:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope I understand it perfectly.  Thats why I dont think it should be bolded.  "If it is in bold, it needs help badly." thats from the top of the page.  Personally I do not think it BADLY needs help.  Its complete, it has ever thing but history in a seperete section on about half of the routes along with intersections.  But those will come in due time.  Its not a major problem since the only way to get the history info is to use Bessert, which is EXTREMELY time consuming rewriting everything, and for the intersections is using earth google or yahoo maps to figure that info out.  Either way those are long processes ones most people cringe at.  Now take other states they need a lot more help than just that.  They need routes actually created, infoboxes, and a lot of the intoductory stuff done.  Me and a few others in Michigan are just doing the touching up right now, one route at a time.  --Mihsfbstadium 23:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, okay, no one will work on Michigan articles.  I have only looked at 3 articles adn they all looked similar to this.  Maybe I just looked at the wrong articles by chance and found the few in bad shape.  This isn't meant to insult you are the project, but obviously you have taken offense to it.  If you think this is bad, trying taking an article to WP:FA.  --Holderca1 09:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep you looked at the wrong one.  That one has a key word you should see.  It said 'was' a state route.  That means it is no longer active and getting info for it is relatively much harder and frankly not necessary versus routes like say M-6 or M-11 or M-45 or M-231 and the like.  --Mihsfbstadium 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps for Michigan 

message: Shouldn't some of the columns for states be assessed whether there is a subproject or not?  I believe all states should have "structure compliant", "exit list compliant", "state of articles", "completion lists", "shields", and "maps" assessed regardless if they have a subproject or not.  I realize this was started to assess the state of the subprojects, but since the states without a subproject have typically been neglected, it would be nice to know where it needs work.  Also, for those that are non-compliant, can we get a note that links to the bottom of the page that states what exactly is wrong?  --Holderca1 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on some parts.  I think that there should be some notice, some where within the subproject that the project is not compliant with what we have on this list.  As for states without subprojects, I don't think it should be included in the same table.  The path for this wiki is "Subprojects/Status".  That, to me, suggests that this is a status check for subprojects that exists.  I think it should be on a separate table.  Can it be on the same page as this?  Yes, but then it's an odd place to put it considering the path.  --myselfalso 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this can always be moved as well, actually just moving it up to WP:USRD/Status would resolve this issue.  I would prefer to have everything in one table though.  --Holderca1 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  States without projects 

message: It is my humble opinion that this page should be looking at the state of each subproject.  And to me, this status of the project should depend on major points.  
*That the project has a reasonable number of active editors
*That the project page is in good order
*That the project is maintaining its own articles, and trying to get their articles into compliance.  
I don't know if this is stated somewhere or not.  That's why I'm just putting this out there.  As far as I am concerned, we should be rating projects as the whole state of the articles.  If a two-thirds majority of articles aren't in ELG compliance, then the project shouldn't be considered ELG compliant. I'm just using ELG as an example; I think this should go for every category used on the Status page.  I think there should be a number of columns dedicated for the project page, and sub-pages of the project.  The other columns should be dedicated to the status of articles for each subproject.  --myselfalso 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Status