User talk:Fredddie/Archives/2019

Commons old style Israeli road signs deletion

I've nominated on commons for deletion a first batch (took way to long to tag all of them, which is why this is just a subset of them) of the old style Israeli signs as since they aren't following the correct style, they should be deleted as to not be incorrectly used on articles. --Gonnym (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Missing road shields

As of today, a number of road articles are missing their shields. The infobox of Ontario Highway 68 has been disrupted after you changed the road type from "Hwy" to "ON 1960". As for the others, i do not know what is causing the problem. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the pages i have listed below. - Radiphus (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ontario Highway 68
• Padang Besar – Sadao Highway
• Sungai Padi Road
• Thailand Route 401
• Wang Prachan Road

Thanks. I did some rearranging on the backend of {{Infobox road}} (only Ontario and Thailand) that caused these. I reverted Ontario 68 and created the missing files for these Thailand articles. –Fredddie™ 14:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Module:Road data/strings/USA/GA

Why did you revert my edit on the Module:Road data/strings/USA/GA page? You didn't leave an explanation in the edit summary. Did you make a change somewhere else that calls the Georgia State Bicycle Routes? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, why did you refactor the previous edit? You removed the USBR type entirely, which is what that editor wanted (I checked the edit histories against the Jct template error category). I simply restored what that editor wanted. If you were just trying to add the SBR type, you need to be more careful. –Fredddie™ 19:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The {{Jct}} template wouldn't call the Georgia State Bicycle Routes with the previous edit. That's why I reformatted it. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

But in doing so, you removed the USBR type, which is why you need to be careful. –Fredddie™ 01:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know that I removed the "USBR" type. At the time, I thought it was for the Georgia routes, not the US ones. Also, articles using the Jct template are getting errors with the USBR parameter. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Colorado State Highway 7

According to this picture [1] it is signed as business 7 so i was wondering how to make a SH-Bus Type for the template? Thanks. Bacardi379 (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Fredddie™ 00:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

SH 7 / SH 7 Bus.

1920 route markers

Thanks for making the set of 1920 route markers, they look great.

The image for 8 doesn't seem to be there, however, and it didn't appear with the rest of them when I completed the list. No rush on it of course, just letting you know. --Sable232 (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:County 65A square.svg

Thanks for uploading File:County 65A square.svg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ontario Highway Markers

Hi, I noticed a few your broken images on Ontario Highway articles and I think it was this edit you made that was the cause, So I thought I'd just flag them up....

• Ontario Highway 107
• Ontario Highway 114
• Ontario Highway 117
• Ontario Highway 121
• Ontario Highway 131
• Ontario Highway 400A
• Ontario Highway 650 and List_of_secondary_highways_in_Timiskaming_District#Highway_650
• Ontario Highway 667

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't the right edit, but I think I got them all. –Fredddie™ 04:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi yes all cleared, thanks. KylieTastic (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for review

Hey Fredddie, do you mind taking a quick look at today's (May 21 2019) edits by the Anon IP here to ensure they are consistent with your Project's objectives, guidelines, etc. There appears to be multiple requests for file deletions. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I have enough pages in my watchlists that I saw some of these edits and I don't have any issue with them per se. If the PR tertiary files are going to be ellipses, then they duplicate the Ellipse sign X files and should rightfully be deleted and redirected. If you recall in the long thread on WT:USRD, I suggested reverting the PR tertiary files back to the old round versions because I foresaw this very thing happening. What I didn't see was it happening this quickly. –Fredddie™ 03:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I take advantage of Mercy11's opening this discussion so that either of you can clarify to me the following question. In this PDF of the DTOP (2003-2004) the tertiary shield is shown in a circular form and in this other PDF (2009) that same shield is shown in the elliptical form. We know that both versions exist today in Puerto Rico because the first generation of these shields was small and then the wide version came. During the past days I noticed that Fredddie changed the PR_tertiary file name to Ellipse_sign, but long before that, I replaced the circular versions with the elliptical ones to adjust them to the version of the second PDF (2009). Last night I came across what Mercy said and, for my part, it seems good to me that the "duplicate" shields be removed to favor those of the Elliptical route shields category, but then I noticed that some shields that I modified were reverted to their original circle design created by Fredddie.

The question is: which of the two versions should be used officially and with which file name? For me it's good that the circle is replaced by the ellipse sign and, even, the PR_tertiary file name can be replaced by the Ellipse_sign because both styles are relatively the same. I hope you help me with this doubt to stop making mistakes. Yamil Rivera (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It's good to ask the questions. It's a good idea to maintain a set of circles for Puerto Rico. If we ever start talking about former routes, we will utilize them. As far as I can tell, there are three shield eras in Puerto Rico. Please let me know if there are more.

1. A document I found on http://www.dtop.gov.pr from 1979 says to only use circles for PR highways. That's about the same time the FHWA strongly recommended using circles for state highways.
2. Then there's the island shield era, which I'm guessing started in the late 1980s and ended in the late 1990s.
3. Then there is the current shield era. Similar to Category:Minnesota State Route markers, we should probably re-save the wide shields under a different name and revert to the squares. Compare File:MN-100.svg and File:MN-100 wide.svg.

So the benefit to having the different styles of shields is that we can go back in time, sort of. USRD editors make an effort to use the right shields for the period of time for which articles are written. See U.S. Route 366 (1927–1932) for an example. For a route that was canceled in 1932, it would look weird to have modern shields. All of this is easy to code for {{Jct}} and {{Infobox road}}. –Fredddie™ 23:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me to better understand the situation. You're right in everything you say. For the 70s only the circular shield was used on all roads in Puerto Rico, as shown on page 109 of this PDF. Unfortunately two days ago I placed the duplicate template on all my tertiary shields and they were removed in favor of the elliptical ones. Maybe that was the reason why the anonymous user tried to imitate my actions in your files to complete the process that I had started before.

If we get carried away by this whole event, then the primary, urban primary and secondary shields should also appear in both square and rectangle shapes. Regardless of the decision that is chosen, my recommendation is that the files be renamed and placed in the Puerto Rico old highway shields category with their respective subcategories. However, I don't think it's necessary to create shields for all possible numbers of routes. Making a shield for each number of digits (from 1 to 4) is more than enough. Yamil Rivera (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Rico has had several eras of shields. The oldest of the shields I know dates from the mid-20th century. Its design is identical to that used in Iowa in 1926, with the difference that "P.R." was written on the top. The book where I saw that shield I don't have available at this time, but soon I will be able to share more details with you.

The next shield dates from the 70s. After that shield came several. The best known is the semicircle with the map of the island at the top. Then came the tollway, forest route and scenic route shields (the same as the forest route, but below read "Ruta Panoramica" instead of "Bosque Nacional"). After them, in 1999 came the primary, urban primary, secondary and tertiary shields with square shape to later appear the wide version of them a few years later. Yamil Rivera (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have recreated a few of the tertiary shields that existed. File:PR tertiary 4110.svg no longer redirects to File:Ellipse sign 4110.svg. If they look a little different than before, it's because I used the 1979 guide, which look better in my eye. –Fredddie™ 01:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I just saw your shields and they're great! They look just like the ones I remember from my childhood. Thanks a lot! Yamil Rivera (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed that in the infobox road small your new shields appear instead of the elliptical ones. I don't know if you should correct that. Yamil Rivera (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I was just clicking the edit button to fix that when I got the new message notification haha –Fredddie™ 02:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks and I'm sorry. Yamil Rivera (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Fredddie! The shields for some primary-numbered roads were correct. The idea is that people associate the number with their main network (Pri = 1-99, Sec = 100-299 and Ter = 300-9999) and then specify the other networks to which each road also belong. For that reason I took the liberty of adding some changes to your code. Maybe you and I are seeing the PR type in opposite ways. I suppose you see PR as Primary only and I see PR as Puerto Rico (the four networks put together) because the roads are identified as PR-XX. I'd like you to correct me if I'm wrong.

In relation to the word Ramal, in Puerto Rico it means both spur and loop roads. When the word Ramal is placed on top of the shield, the R suffix isn't placed on the number because it is redundant. There are also a few roads with the letter P as a suffix. The P means Paralela (parallel) and is usually seen in a downtown when the streets only have traffic in one direction. That is, the road makes its main route through one of the streets and the opposite direction is represented by the other street as parallel. If you want to make clear the distinction between spur and loop, you can keep Ramal for spurs and add Alt or any other word to loops. Yo can also add Peaje for those toll roads that aren't part of the Autopistas de Puerto Rico system.

If you think that it isn't necessary to maintain a primary shield for the roads you have edited, let me know your opinion. I'm willing to follow your recommendations. Regards. Yamil Rivera (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually looking up the roads on StreetView and in DTOP data that we've discussed previously to see what is actually signed. PR-6, for example, is never signed as a primary highway; DTOP data confirms this, so I'm changing the types as I go. –Fredddie™ 02:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That's great. What specific documents (links) are you using for the official identification of the networks? If one of them is this, I'm afraid that PR-6 is also tertiary (in the StreetView it is also confirmed what I say). I would like you to share them with me to help you correct the errors in the articles. Maybe this page, this section (Google Earth only) and this map can help us. Yamil Rivera (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:NYCint template tracking category

A tag has been placed on Category:NYCint template tracking category requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: go ahead and delete. –Fredddie™ 02:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

R708 (South Africa)

@Fredddie: You helped us out before with shield problems on South African Highways and roads. Can you take a look at this R708 (South Africa) when you have time. Regards Paul Conlinp (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I got it. The infobox uses ISO alpha 3 codes, which for South Africa is ZAF. It was ZA and I just added the F to the end. –Fredddie™ 23:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That simple. Feel stupid. Thanks for your help. Conlinp (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Sometimes you just need another set of eyes to look at it. –Fredddie™ 00:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

US 80 at California/Arizona state line

I wanted to discuss the correct way to display US 80 crossing the state line on the California/Arizona border. I understand the usual way to display a River crossing is the way you rearranged it, but the border situation near the Ocean to Ocean Bridge at the state line is an unusual one. Right at the western side of the bridge, the state border leaves the Colorado River and heads due north paralleling old US 80 for 0.04 miles north of the north end of the bridge. Approximately 0.04 miles north of the OOH Bridge, US 80 made a curve northwest and crossed into California right in front of an abandoned Agricultural Inspection Station. The crossing of the state border was on dry land and the entirety of the OOH Bridge on either side of the river is in Yuma County, Arizona and so is the small bend of the Colorado River it sits on. That's why I originally placed the Colorado River as a location inside Yuma County. The river itself isn't the border crossing. With that cleared up, should I leave the intersection table the way you left it? I don't want to jump the gun and make any changes without prior consultation. Thanks. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 23:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I want to discuss this with you, but I think the discussion would be better in the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-roads ^connect. There are more people you can bounce your ideas off of. –Fredddie™ 02:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Right. Thank you for the advice. I'll be sure to ask around there.-- -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 19:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Can I have some advice please?

I try the best I can to write good aeticles and provide good sourcing for any content I write. But it appears the articles I write or improve come up lackluster to standards I'm hoping to reach. I remember while I was writing U.S. Route 80 in Alabama, I worked very hard to create an A Class article right off the bat amd did my absolute best to make it meet as many standards as possible. At first, the article received a C Class rating despite the effort until you were able to raise it to B Class standards. I wanted to thank you for that by the way, it means a lot to me that at least three of my articles at least reach B Class. I was hoping, could you please give me some advice on what I could do to improve my writing style or methods so I could have a chance at writing A Class or higher? Thank you in advance and I appreciate the support and help you've given to me on occasion up tp this point. Especially with improving the U.S. Route 80 in Arizona article. I still go in amd try to further improve that one every day in hopes it'll better meet high standards.  -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 01:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorta tickled that you came to me for writing tips. Writing is the one thing I haven't done a lot of lately, but I can still help you out. Starting out, If I were you, I wouldn't force myself to write. We don't get paid to do this; if you're not enjoying it, do what I did and go make shields for a while. I'll write this from the POV of starting with a blank slate, since that's typically what I do.

First thing I do is create the frame of the article. Section headers, {{reflist}}, and infobox go in the first edit and then I'll write the junction list. I do those first because they're going to be static for most of the process and it helps me find the natural splits in the route. If the highway is over 50 miles long, I'll split the route into three roughly equal sections (that's where the jct list helps). I'll just make a list in outline form. Longer routes, I might do three 3rd level headers and then split the subsections equally-ish. Dividing the article like this is a device I use to keep the prose moving once I start writing. Did I mention that I haven't actually done any writing at this point?

Next I'll write the outline for the history section. This is where I consult with roadgeek sites to see what they talk about. Let me be clear about this, I only use them as a guide and not as a source. A lot of them are full of boring cruft that we don't need to talk about. If it's a U.S. Highway, there's a chance it was affected by construction of Interstates in the 1950s/60s, so it's worthing looking into. Then look into how the highway has changed in recent times. I've found there are a few eras of highway building: 1930s (original construction), 1950s (Interstates), 1980s (Interstates were literally crumbling), and the last 20 years, but YMMV. At this point, your article should look like this: [2]. As you can see, very little writing has occurred.

Once I start writing, I can knock out the RD in a day or three depending on the length and how I feel about writing. At this point, I'll start citing as I go, this is something you seem to have figured out so I won't tell you how to do it. Then the article is at this stage: [3]. If I haven't done any research yet, this is where I stop writing and start looking. If you don't have a Newspaperarchive.com and Newspapers.com account through WP:TWL, get one. I can't recommend them highly enough. But I'd also make a trip to the largest library around where you live. Here in Des Moines, the DMPL has the microfiche catalogued, so I can look up something and get a copy of the article. This is particularly helpful if papers like The Des Moines Register are behind a paywall. It's easy to fall into the habit of writing "In 192x, this happened. In 193x, that happened." So I ask myself why these events are happening. On U.S. Route 34 in Iowa#US 534 freeway, I ended up talking about cost overruns and economic woes and how they affected the construction of the road. The following section about the Glenwood area talks about how construction lead to a law protecting Native American graves. Come to think about it, US 34's history section is probably the best one I've ever written.

Once I have the RD and history written, that's when I write the lead(s). I don't think you can write a good lead if you haven't written anything in the article yet, so I wait. If the RD and history sections are long, I'll write a section lead. Some people would add the "National Highway System" paragraph here, but I'm not a fan. I don't think it adds anything to the article. If the article isn't live yet, this is when I take it live. I make sure to add |reassess=yes to the talk page banner so another project member will take a look. You can also have WP:GOCE look it over or ask someone whose opinion you trust. This is when the article starts to take on some shine. I used to think GAN was a big deal, as far as stepping stones to get to FAC, it's not that important. Sure, you'll get someone to review it again, but I've seen so many USRD Good Articles that weren't good articles (note the difference) that it's mostly a rubber stamp. The place to get the most rigorous review is WP:HWY/ACR. We've changed the rules over the years, but you have to have a couple people give a formal review of the article, get a source review, and check the licensing on images before it becomes A-Class. The people who hang out at ACR know what reviewers at FAC look for, so we try to iron out those kinks before the article gets there. There is considerable rigor at FAC, but I (speaking only for myself) haven't had any antagonism directed at my work and it's been a generally positive experience.

---

Thought break. That's the writing process. Something that helps you become a better writer, I've found, is to review. I'll go through my ACR process, which is pretty thorough, but much faster to explain than above. I break down my reviews into the sections of the article from top to bottom. So I go through the infobox and lead, RD, history, and junction list sections separately. I read the whole article line by line and look for things that just don't seem right. If it's something small, like spelling, I'll just fix it myself. The key is to create a dialogue with the nominator, so I ask questions and make suggestions. Here is a selection of my reviewing work: Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Washington State Route 527 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/California State Route 54 most recently. This is probably my most famous (or infamous) review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pennsylvania Turnpike/archive1.

One takeaway from the reviewing side is that people who review your work generally want your article to pass. If you're given criticism about your writing, don't take it as a personal affront. Use it as an opportunity to get better. Read what people have said in past reviews and use it to improve your work.

This took me way too long to write (about 4 hours); I hope you find it useful. –Fredddie™ 04:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This advice is exactly what I needed.It means a lot that you took the time to explain all of this to me and give me important pointers. I will most definitely he following this process and advice. -- -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 10:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fredddie: I wanted to follow up on the advice received earlier. Recently, I put your method of article writing to the test and typed out U.S. Route 70 in Arizona with it, using as much good sourcing as I could come across. Imzadi1979 gave it a C rating. I hope it's not too much to ask, but what kind of mistakes, non-conformities or errors did I make that couod have lead to it getting that rating? Is the article just too short? Thanks. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 02:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. I will give it one of my thorough reviews in the next few days. My gut reaction just by glancing over it is that the history section is too short. I will dive deeper into it soon. –Fredddie™ 01:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to expand and be more thorough and detailed with the US 95 article I'm working on, just in case. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 02:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:UK road

Thank you for your work on this template, the display is much better now. However, you overlooked one point: the overall icon height should be 12 pixels; your edits made the text height 12px. Hopefully it's not much more work to make the fix. Useddenim (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

K-16

I am so glad that you found my "mistake" in the K-16 article and fixed it. But in the future dont add a comment in the description of changes that suggests im stupid or that I dont know how to write good articles, just fix the mistake. Thanks 420Traveler (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

What I said was no different than what would be said at ACR or FAC, but it was not a comment on your intelligence. Regardless, adding a comment to the end of Twinkle's autogenerated text lets you know that the reversion had some thought behind it and wasn't a knee-jerk reaction. If that comment helps anyone write better, then it served a purpose. –Fredddie™ 11:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

LZ-1 and LZ-2 edits

Hey Fredddie, I noticed you modified the pages for LZ-1 and LZ-2; however, I'm not sure I fully agree with classifying them as and calling them "national roads". See my comments on Talk:LZ2_(Lanzarote) when you have a minute. Thanks. Vishal dh (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elgin Bypass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fox River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

US 70 in Arizona History Section

Just thought I'd update you and let you know I'm still working on a revised history section. It's going slowly though, which is why no huge changes have been made yet. Been following your outline that you gave me in the peer review. What I have so far is in my user sandbox. I hope you don't mind me asking something unrelated, but how can I get a Good Article nomination for US 80 in Arizona? I've been working hard to try and get it to Good Article status. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 02:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Nominating something at GAN is easy. If you think it's ready, and it sounds like you do, just slap {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Transport}} on the talk page and that's it. It will probably take a while (there is a backlog of reviews) but someone will come along and review it. –Fredddie™ 16:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fredddie: Thank you for the information on getting US 80 in Arizona nominated. I was unable to find sources on why US 70 was eliminated and reintroduced to Arizona on different routes. Whatever resources I could find, I put in. It looks like after the construction of the Coolidge Dam bypass in 1956, US 70 hasn't changed much between Globe and Franklin in Arizona. It's more or less the same highway as it was back then. I've completed my re-writing of the history section the best I could. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 23:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cards84664 (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cards84664: I typically stay away from ANI unless I really need to. I'll keep an eye on this one but I probably won't comment. You can probably correctly assume how I feel about it. –Fredddie™ 03:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in, but it's likely however Fredddie feels about this is about the same for me. I personally like these new OSM based maps as they are not only aesthetically pleasing, but simplified and help establish a more uniform standard for highway maps on Wikipedia articles where there really wasn't a well controlled one before. I only wish these maps could handle file sizes over 2,000 MB so we could make more of them. I tried to create a map for all of US 191 twice, but both times, neither Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons liked the file size. I still wonder how whoever made the map for all of I-95 managed to pull that off. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 23:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Interstate 80 in Iowa

Does the thmubnail of OSM map in infobox render for you currently? Seems it did for me when I edited the article yesterday (otherwise I would not have edited) but it does not today. Tried other browsers and also logged out and did not help. Somethimes the map thumbnail does not render (show) when I am logged in but not the case now. I am working with the author of Module:Mapframe on fixing module bugs for auto lat/lon and auto zoom.--Kozuch (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Right now no, but it does when I click the empty space. If you're working with the module author, look at my contribs from last night. There were a couple that I removed coordinates and zooms and then immediately reverted because it centered on the wrong location. Interstate 96 was one of the articles. –Fredddie™ 12:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T229800

I just filed a bug (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T229800) due to which thumbnail sometimes shows and sometimes does not.--Kozuch (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Map stroke-width

I don't disagree that the thinner lines look better. For one, they make partially obscured city names more legible. But consistency is important. Editing Template:Maplink to use a thinner default line would be better. Redesigning the template to only allow selection from a very limited number of named fill/stroke styles (and deleting the override parameters) would be ideal. ―cobaltcigs 21:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop you from proposing it, but I'm also not going to rock the boat by proposing it myself. Just because stroke-width=3 works for roads doesn't mean that it works for everything else. –Fredddie™ 23:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

List of secondary state highways in Virginia

Sorry - my edit summary got scrambled. Please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Mass nomination Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. I'm going to revert you because I wasn't quite done on that page, but we'll end up with the same final result. –Fredddie™ 15:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The (disambiguation) redirects can't be speedy deleted with incoming links. Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

BAB-E template

Hi Fredddie,

you recently edited Template: BAB-E. Originally, only the road number sign was displayed, which was also a link. Currently the sign and the text link are displayed separately.

vs E55

This leads to "weird" formatting in some infoboxes and tables. Here are some examples: A1 (Austria), A1 (Switzerland) or Highways in Slovakia

--Krumpi (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I turned BAB-E, among other templates, into wrappers for Template:Jct. Most times, templates like BAB-E are copied over from other language wikis, so they don't necessarily follow any guidelines and best practices here at ENWP. Shoehorning those templates into Jct is a good way to ensure that the links follow our guidelines and best practices. –Fredddie™ 15:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

U.S. Route 290

Here's another peer review to look at whenever you're available. ToThAc (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

U.S. Route 66 in Arizona

I've been hard at work over the last couple of months improving the quality of U.S. Route 66 in Arizona in hopes of eventually bringing it to GA status. I wanted to ask how it looks so far. I recently just finished re-writing or properly sourcing all the sections as well as making grammar corrections where needed. On a related note, I was wondering, how can I become qualified to assess an article rating? -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 03:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll look at it in the coming days. There are no qualifications for assessing articles. WP:USRD/A has some good tips. –Fredddie™ 00:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I ask because I would re-assess the rating of it myself, but I heard that goes against general courtesy and protocol in terms of how things usually operate within WP:USRD. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 07:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:New York Roads portal waiting list

A tag has been placed on Category:New York Roads portal waiting list requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall creating that one so you can change it to author requested if need be. –Fredddie™ 18:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

RE:Map data

Okay, what should I do if the number of coordinates is too large to create a proper map? I remember you encountering a problem like that for Interstate 10 in Texas, and it's something that needs to be addressed in U.S. Route 67 in Arkansas. ToThAc (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

To trim down the size of the KML, I copy and paste into a text editor and use regex to get it down to 4 or 5 decimal points. That's all I did here.

As far as US 67 goes, I copied the GeoJSON over to Commons. It's at commons:Data:U.S. Route 67 in Arkansas.map. All you do is place the GeoJSON as converted by the script in the data field (see here for an example). Just highlight the brackets and ...GeoJSON... and replace directly with the GeoJSON from the script. The center coordinates I get from the WikiMiniAtlas at the top of the article; clicking the button to expand gets you a URI with the center coordinates. The rest of the map parameters are self explanatory. Then in the mapframe template, you replace |raw={{Wikipedia:Map data/Wikipedia KML/U.S. Route 67 in Arkansas}} with |from=U.S. Route 67 in Arkansas.map.

Does this make sense at all, @ToThAc and 420Traveler:? –Fredddie™ 02:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep, did a successful attempt at U.S. Route 64 in Oklahoma. One more thing: what's your preferred method of creating KML files? I tried looking at the appropriate section in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Tutorial, but I can't seem to make sense of it. ToThAc (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I really like the My Maps method on Google. You basically trace the route similarly to how regular Google Maps works and then export the KML. I usually take it to Google Earth and to clean up the file since the default output is a blue line with pushpins.

Worked when I tested it out on Texas State Highway Loop 1, thank you! ToThAc (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see my edit summary

Link Smurf

Hey, I know you've been trying to get my attention. You got it, now leave me the fuck alone. –Fredddie™ 02:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

TxDOT MUTCD

Thanks for updating me earlier on the changed MUTCD of TxDOT signs. I recently took a look at the current MUTCD signs and I believe I can make new SVG files for the changed sign designs, without having to update or change the Infobox shield templates.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 23:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? –Fredddie™ 23:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This:

Business State Highway 6-R
Location	Foo

This is modified exactly to the specs given by the most recent TxDOT MUTCD.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 08:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Superior National Forest Scenic Byway

I'm puzzled by this edit - the ARDC document originally referenced states a length of 78 miles and indicates the extension to Gilbert both in text and on maps. Google Street View shows route markers along this extension (e.g. eastbound 135 just past the junction with 37). --Sable232 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The ref I added from Explore Minnesota and the USDA ref (now refs 1 and 3) both suggest that the byway is still 61 miles. I did see the shields in StreetView, so I'll make the changes. It's frustrating when references disagree like this. –Fredddie™ 23:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The Forest Service brochure dates from 2010, prior to the extension, so that one makes sense. I don't understand why the state tourism site doesn't agree though. --Sable232 (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It dates from 2010, yes, but it shows the last time it was updated was October 2019. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –Fredddie™ 23:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Module:Road data/strings/CAN/ON

Hey Fredddie, not sure if this was meant and your planing on creating new images but your edits to Module:Road data/strings/CAN/ON appear to be the cause of about 100 articles flagged on CAT:MISSFILE and also issues on Template:ON former (and sub pages) from Category:Templates with missing files. Just thought id mention in case it wasn't intentional. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Never mind - I see you've already addressed just as I was posting this :) - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I accidentally called for File:Ontario Highway nn.svg instead of File:Ontario nn.svg. Silly mistake. –Fredddie™ 21:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox road/shield/BRA

Hi Fredddie, just a heads-up... it looks like your edits to Template:Infobox road/shield/BRA have caused number of issues ~180 to pop up on CAT:MISSFILE. Some look like valid names such as File:BR-287.svg on BR-287 which used to show File:BR-287.png, others now odd like File:¬-079.svg on SP-79 (which used to show File:SP-079.svg. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I got it cleared up. That's what I get for editing tired. –Fredddie™ 14:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, as always - such things are easy to miss when your doing "...just a few more edits" - had to revisit a couple of things the day after myself :) KylieTastic (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:PRint

Hi, Fredddie! I would like you to add a parameter to the Template:PRint that includes |line=yes between |km= and |km2= in concurrency situations to apply it to the intersection between PR-2 and PR-165 with a reference note. You can see California State Route 33 as an example of what I would like to implement. TC! Yamil Rivera (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

That was easy. I'm surprised it wasn't already there. –Fredddie™ 04:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Arizona State Route 202

Hey, Freddie, thanks for fixing that on Arizona State Route 202. I was nowhere near sure how you fixed something like that, and I knew it was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbl1975 (talk • contribs) 09:46, December 30, 2019 (UTC)

No worries, there can be a learning curve to {{Jct}}. –Fredddie™ 23:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)