User talk:C16sh/Archive 7

Unnecessary edits for Phoenix-area freeways

Hello. This is to let you know, on behalf on Wikipedia, that we appreciate your help in editing. Having said that, I've noticed that you attempted to make some improvements to several pages related to freeways in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Most of your edits, particularly ones pertaining to the notes and/or locations of exits in the exit tables, are actually unnecessary. On the other hand, adding mileposts, as you did for Loop 101, is something that we have been looking to get done for some time. So if you would like to go back and re-insert the missing mileposts for Loop 101, be our guest. But please, do not change the locations of exits from cities to urban villages, as most urban villages in Phoenix are not widely used in media or in regular everyday parlance. Thanks. Greggens (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed urban villages and added missing mileposts, but I also kept other small changes that are beneficial to the respective articles, and would be happy to explain my reasoning behind them. — c16sh (speak up) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, some urban villages are OK to reference. If you're from the Phoenix area, you'll know which ones are widely used and which ones aren't. Greggens (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wyoming (New Jersey train station)

I posted this last year but it aged into the archive during a week while you were offline, so trying again.

Hi. I'm writing about one of your edits a few months ago to the Morristown Line article, to which I see you're an important contributor. I had a meeting in Chatham recently and so I had occasion to ride this line from New York to Chatham for the very first time. I used the Wikipedia article as a guide, and was intrigued by the redlinked entry for a former station at Wyoming, between South Orange and Maplewood. (I'll admit that I hadn't previously heard of a Wyoming, New Jersey at all.) I kept my eyes open, but didn't see any relics of the former station, so I was just curious how you know it was there. Are there sources that reference it that I could add to the article? I'm just curious about this, but any information would be welcome. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe the station existed near Wyoming Avenue, where there is a clearing to the north of the tracks. This is actually in between Maplewood and Millwood--that was an error on my part (and at this point, I can't recall the reference that I used). Hope this clears anything up, and apologizes for the extremely delayed response, — c16sh (speak up) 17:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Massachusetts exit lists

I already worked on most exit lists for interstates in Massachusetts about a year ago: adding mileposts and verifying control cities from Google Street View. This should let you contribute more usefully to other articles. Chinissai (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you first verified that mileposts are properly referenced from MassDOT before making a false claim that they are incorrect. I feel discouraged by your misleading edit summary. Chinissai (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

What I meant by "incorrect" was that including two separate rows with two separate mileposts for different directions of the same highway only accounts for one side of the road. Sorry if that made you feel discouraged--your edits to verify MassDOT mileposts are quite beneficial and I wasn't trying to allude to that. As far as I have looked, (and I haven't looked everywhere, so please correct me if I'm wrong) it doesn't exist, and there are very, very, very many other articles that do not follow one line per sign. Furthermore, MOS:RJL states that "If there are two exits in an interchange, one for each direction of the crossing road, they should generally be combined into one row, unless this would complicate matters." Looking at I-95 for example, there are interchanges where this rule would dictate two rows and there are interchanges where this rule would dictate just one. Going forward, I will try to stick to this practice and would encourage you to do the same. Regards — c16sh (speak up) 22:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this matter with me. I did not quite understand your first few sentences, so let me write what I understood. If you go to the route log at MassDOT, each exit is indicated by a green box. When you hover your mouse over the green box, the milepost for that exit will show up. I believe it is customary to refer to mileposts for the northbound direction (if both directions happen to be different), with the exception of southbound-only exits. I did exactly that. For suffixed exits, there is a milepost per exit as shown in the table. As a result, listing each exit ramp separately looks simpler, especially for Massachusetts exits. I am aware that my exit-list convention does not follow the guidelines, but, again, it is only the guidelines. I believe it is more helpful for the readers to see that, for example, if they want to go to Cape Cod on I-495, they should take Exit 6A. I don't believe using more rows is more cluttering. In particular, when signage for different directions of travel differs, such as Exit 27 on I-95. Listing all of them on one long line--and then add another line of notes to that--appears confusing to me. Of course, going against guidelines warrants some discussions on a larger scale, which is something I have not done. I believe some editor would be in favor of this approach if presented properly. Chinissai (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I now remember when to split or not split an exit. This all goes back to the route log on MassDOT. For each interchange that has suffixed exits, the goal is to come up with a single milepost for that interchange. For Exit 7, for example, that milepost is 12.944, even if the exit has two ramps. In contrast, for Exit 6, there is no single milepost for the crossroad, so I had to resort to individual milepost for each ramp. I also do the same for different signage such as Exit 27, regardless of whether a single milepost exists. I hope this settles the matter for Massachusetts exits. Chinissai (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Mid-Cape Highway

Hey, you might find this and this article of use for Mid-Cape information. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, C16sh. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)