User talk:Imzadi1979/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

just discovered the Highways wiki.

I’d like to learn more about how to contribute to the highways project and produce content of quality. I’ve been interested in highways for a while now but they may become more of a hobby in the future. I travel a lot from Traverse City region where I currently reside and grew up. I think the concept of heritage is cool. As a tool to add more value to my life I’d like to explore my Michigan heritage. Mtmongoose (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Kentucky Route 3716

KY 3716 will need to be removed because the article can only contain supplemental and rural secondary highways and that highways is State Secondary TheGs2007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit reverted

Could you adequately explain why you reverted my edit on the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Redirects/Michigan page? Your edit summary didn't tell me what you meant. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Morriswa: what purpose is there to list each CDH marker alongside the single article link on what is otherwise a listing of redirects? The addition had not utility because it didn't have any connection to redirects. Imzadi 1979 → 22:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Route 40N

Why did you revert my edit on U.S. Route 40N (Kansas)? I thought that, if a state-specific page is a redirect, all appropriate categories go on the parent highway page. Even then, the actual state-specific page would be U.S. Route 40N in Kansas, not the aforementioned redirect. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not really a good practice. If the title could/should/would host a full article, then that title should be categorized. As for "U.S. Route 40 (Kansas)" vs. "U.S. Route 40N in Kansas", the latter format is for a state-detail article on a specific highway that enters multiple states, and the former format is for a highway that shares a name with separate highways by the same name in other states. Imzadi 1979 → 01:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, US 40N used to also exist in Colorado. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Uploading svg image

Recently I had created “Kentucky Route 6087” and I needed to upload an svg image for that section header. Ive tried the image uploader “Commonist” but I cannot run it because I am not on java TheGs2007 (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Any image can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without the use of a special tool. (Commonist is good for mass uploads of related items, but honestly, it's easier to use the upload form on Commons for a single image.) Imzadi 1979 → 21:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Interstate 94

This article has a map which shows that the interchange will be rebuilt south of the current one. A new six-ramp parclo will be built over top of present-day Highland Avenue, and the current Exit 33 will be obliterated. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The new interchange configuration is also being built over the top of the existing interchange's footprint, per the map in the article. You have no source for the milepost for updated location, nor do you have a source for a new exit number. So, when construction is done, we can update the exit list properly in a manner consistent with the rest of how it's formatted, a key consideration when dealing with a Featured Article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

M156 Disambugiation discussion

Heya! I don't know if you want to comment on this (or know who may) but a message was left on my talk page about changing the M156 redirect page to go straight to the article on the Mercedes engine with a hatnote linking to M-156 article instead of a disambiguation page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_2#M156 Hope you're doing well. Cheers! Strato|sphere 17:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Interstate 69 in Michigan

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 7, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 7, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Interstate 69 in Michigan, about "the third of Michigan's four mainline Interstate Highways, and it's also the only state section of Interstate 69 that's complete in the US now that the highway is being extended to Mexico"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Business us 24 and business I 75

Ohh I see what you mean alright I’ll leave it alone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.33.192.110 (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Difficulty with citation templates

They almost never go through the machine translator properly. Removing them manually each time I translate is tedious, so I prefer not to use citation templates.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

There are many reasons to use them though, particularly because they maintain citations in a consistent style. They are already in use in the article, and the hand-crafted citations are wildly inconsistent in terms of what is being italicized, the order of presentation, etc. Imzadi 1979 → 21:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I can try and be more consistent. I've gone through them recently to take care of dead links, so I can appreciate that formatting them correctly is no small task.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

US 54 Alternate and US 54 Business

I have set US 54 Business at that specific cite because the one you were attempting to use would not and US 54 Alternate well I will be working on getting that put in to Special routes of U.S. Route 54 so if you could please leave them be. Not trying to come off as rude or anything I'm just letting you in on details.

If you have anymore questions let's talk at my cite: 38.103.204.42 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.204.42 (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Izmadi your redirect for US 54 Business is dead it will not take anyone to that but the redirect I use will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.204.42 (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I will continue to bypass your redirects because the ones you are using do not work.38.103.204.42 (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop changing links just to turn them blue as you are doing. It's a problem for a few reasons.

First, for special routes, we should have a link created of the form "U.S. Route X Type (City, State)". In most cases, that link will end up pointing to a section in another article. For example U.S. Route 41 Business (Baraga, Michigan) points to a section in U.S. Route 41 in Michigan that details it. When used properly, {{jct}} relies on these redirects to get readers to the right locations.

Secondly, a redirect could be turned into a full article. It's not common, but it can happen, so not all special routes redirect. U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan) is a full article. If someone went around bypassing redirects to that special route in other articles or lists, those articles/lists won't link to the new article, just the old location.

Lastly, you're pointing links just to the special routes lists, and not even to an appropriate subsection within those lists. So a reader clicking the link has been teased with a blue link someplace and doesn't get anything. It's better to leave it a red link for now and create the proper redirect later when it can point to a specific location with content.

On a different note: former highways on that list are in italics, and you've been removing that indication of the former status without explanation. Imzadi 1979 → 03:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok I see now on the others. Connector U.S. 63 though still exists in Columbia, Missouri so I will take out the italics but leave it red. 38.103.204.42 (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You can see by heading into this link: Special routes of U.S. Route 63 38.103.204.42 (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Book class for WikiProject Highways

Hi, why did you do this? The Book: namespace no longer exists, and so Book-class is redundant. Category:Book-Class Highways articles is empty. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He's on vacation, so I went ahead and undid the edit. It's likely that he did not know that the book namespace was going away. –Fredddie™ 20:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Interstate 4 Importance

Hello! Saw you disagreed with Interstate 4 being High importance versus Mid. Is there any guideline regarding why some are and some aren’t? I must have missed it. It seems silly that there are 1 mile long FL state roads that are the same importance as the interstate that connects Tampa, Florida, Orlando, Florida, and Daytona Beach, Florida, the most well known connection between the two coasts of the state. Thanks for your insight! Zsinj^Talk 18:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Zsinj: most individual state highways, which includes Interstates and US Highways, are mid-importance. Top-importance has been used for the articles on highway systems, high for the lists of highways, mid for individual highways, and low for county roads or special routes. The few Interstates that have been bumped up a level are the transcontinental ones, and I-4 isn't that. Imzadi 1979 → 22:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. Zsinj^Talk 01:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Interstates in Missouri

Could you do me a favour and add a source in for interstate 24W on the List of Interstate Highways in Missouri page in the I-24W notes section. 38.103.206.30 (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Neither news clipping mentions an I-24W, so I've once again removed the addition. Imzadi 1979 → 02:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I noticed in your bio area on your main page that you are from Michigan. That is quite the beautiful state also has many neat highways with a different variety. 38.103.206.30 (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

M-1 (Michigan highway)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 10, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 19, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

38.103.204.42

Hello Izmadi1979 I am just letting you know about Benicio2020 as he/her has been going out of control with their reverts and it is honestly exhausting because I cannot even improve any page without them being quick to immediately revert it. So you may watch out for him/her. 38.103.204.42 (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverting "county-designated highways" to title case

Hello, Imzadi1979

Why did you revert my move of List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan to List of county-designated highways in Michigan? Your explanation was "restore proper noun capitalization", but surely they are now wrong, as they were before my move. As MOS:TITLECAPS tells us, Wikipedia uses sentence case. "Michigan" is the only proper noun in the title, and so only it (and the first word, "List") should be capitalized.

And although I hate it when people make this kind of argument, other similar articles seem to be correctly titled in sentence case, e.g., County roads in Ohio, List of county roads in Lee County, Florida, List of county routes in Suffolk County, New York (26–50C), List of county routes in Elko County, Nevada, etc. In fact, I found only one other highways article on all of Wikipedia that used an uppercase "C" in "County" (which I take to be another mistake).

Can you explain why you think "County-Designated Highways" should be capitalized? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney: this specific type of highway is a proper name, "County-Designated Highway System" just as is "Interstate Highway System" or "United States Numbered Highway System". Unlike "county road" or "county route", which are generic terms, this list article repeats the proper name, like List of Interstate Highways in Michigan or List of U.S. Highways in Michigan. Additionally, any move, if deemed appropriate, was incomplete as it severed the link between the article and its associated KML, the GeoJSON for the interactive map in the infobox (breaking that function completely) and the talk list archives, which all have page titles using the capitalized version. Imzadi 1979 → 16:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Imzadi. Thanks for your answer. Sorry about breaking the KML and GeoJSON links, although I did, in fact adjust the talk page archive. I was working on getting the edit notice template moved (I'm no admin or page mover) while you were reverting.

I know the Interstate Highway System, of course, but I've never heard of "County-Designated Highway System" as some official thing before. Can you point me to some authoritative resource (preferably online) that uses this designation? I'd like to see that it's not just one guy using it with improper capitalization. My web search efforts haven't brought me to a single site that isn't from Christopher J. Bessert or Wikipedia itself. Regards,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 18:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Imzadi? Do you have any official sources for the proper naming of "CDH"? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to my hard copy sources at the moment, but I recall that one of them is the source. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

There are references to generic, capitalized "Highway System(s)" in literature, but they are academic constructs and are not universally adopted. Sort of like jargon for DOT personnel or civil engineers. It is not necessary to use the terms on the Wikipedia article. I went ahead and moved it (back) on that basis.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

So you're just going to page move war until the other person gives up? --Rschen7754 04:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Imzadi1979 asked me to fix the infobox and kml on my talk page; so I did. He had reverted it in the meantime so the infobox would work, but since he asked me to fix the page anyway it seemed legitimate for me to revert it back & fix it.

It is extremely common in professional or academic circles (not limited to transportation) to capitalize phrases that are ordinarily not capitalized in order to establish a convenient acronym. That Imzadi1979 has a hard copy source with the phrase capitalized is irrelevant to the question. Even we had a link to it from a reliable source, it wouldn't make a difference in what the page title should be.

The article still follows this professional MOS pattern in the text itself, but it seems reasonable to use ordinary caps in the title anyway. I was not sure that JohnFromPinckney cared about the use of the acronym in the article or not, so I left it in.

If this needs to go through the formal, contested page move procedure I expect Imzadi1979 will revert the page move again, and JohnFromPinckney will initialize the procedure.

Imzadi1979, you suggested I was stalking you; I have edited a variety of Michigan geographical related articles over the years and consider it a legitimate general interest of mine rather than personally-motivated stalking. I also felt that my intervention was warranted in this case because seven days had elapsed per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Had you answered JohnFromPinckney earlier I likely would have just let you talk it out between the two of you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for M-1 (Michigan highway), "about what is arguably the most important state-level highway in Michigan. It's the only All-American Road in the state and home to many of Detroit's historic sites as well as the city's entertainment districts. It's been a state highway for over a century."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:SS Edmund Fitzgerald

Hello, Imzadi1979. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "SS Edmund Fitzgerald".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: can you restore it, please? It's been part of a slow discussion on the talk page of the actual article, so maybe it should go in my user space for now. Imzadi 1979 → 00:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Outdated template

Hey, I was wondering if there was anything that could be done to fix the {{cite MDOT PRFA}} template, as its link (http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/prfinder/) is an error page, leaving many articles using it as a source with a reference that doesn't correctly verify. Is there any way that an archived link could automatically be embedded in the template whenever it is used, or something similar, in order to fix this problem? Thanks. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Politicsfan4: I have updated the template to link to the replacement MDOT mapping application, and added some intelligent coding to update the access dates to today's date as a default. Imzadi 1979 → 01:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Does Argentina need a jctint Template, or even 2? If so, what should be done.

First, does Argentina even need a jctint? Does it need two for Buenos Aires and the rest of the country. If one, or both of those are true, then I have a bit of a problem. You see, I bit off more than I could chew. The day before my vacation ended, I started two new templates (deletion discussion here) for this purpose, but I never finished the third one, or tested it out. I don't have a problem with them being deleted (for now) as I have them locally stored, but I wouldn't want it to be salted, as I would then have to change the title to something clunky, making it harder for newbies, etc. I would be very pleased if you could come to a consensus on this. The way it is now is good for no one. It's just sitting on Wiki's servers, burning more coal and gas, serving no encyclopedic purpose. If you or someone else in the Latin American Highway Task force wants to fix it that time. If you want to wait, we might as well delete it to save Wikimedia money and energy. Whichever one you decide, just make sure you leave it on the deletion discussion. Or if you want it to be get rid of completely. Then I won't waste my time on it in 8 months. Mr. Holup (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Added Trivia on List of Interstate Highways and removed edit.

Hello, I’m Qutlook, I’ve seem that you removed my edit on List of Interstate Highways and added back the Trivia on I-87 in NC. Even though my note on I-30 was removed for Trivia. I don’t know why what I wrote was classified as Trivia when the I-87 NC Trivia was added back. Qutlook (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Qutlook: the fact that I-30 starts with a three is pure trivia. Calling out the shortest Interstate is actually useful information. Imzadi 1979 → 21:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Calling out Shortest Interstate is also trivia. Saying that it ain’t means that if I put trivia in there it gets removed but old trivia stays, unfair. Qutlook (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

We routinely note the longest or shortest of something. Those are objective facts. However, noting something about the number is minor trivia not worthy of inclusion. Imzadi 1979 → 22:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Opportunity Corridor

Please read my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Opportunity Corridor article issues and comment if you can. I don't know if tweaking things there is practical now since the whole thing is likely to get blown up soon anyway. Mapsax (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Added back error?

Hello, I’m Qutlook. I’ve Noticed you reverted my edit that fixes an error where it should have H-4 had I-4, I fixed it but then you reverted back to the error. What made you believe that it was wrong? Qutlook (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The coding is correct, and a template module needs the correction. Your edit introduced a graphics error, so either way, the best way forward is fixing the module and leaving the article alone. Imzadi 1979 → 03:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t introduce a Graphics error, there was no I-H4 Shield File, so it said “File: I-H4.svg” and I even said in my edit statement that a shield file was needed. Qutlook (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That is the graphics error I mentioned. The correct graphic exists, and it's just a template issue to get the link display fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 19:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You can check for yourself https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interstate_shields but there ain’t a I-H4 shield, not a Template issue Qutlook (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Highway 127 Article

I believe that US Highway 127 is the William Howard Taft Highway. I am not finding articles on the web that confirm that, but it would be a good addition to your article if you could confirm it. I know it is called Taft Highway in Hamilton County Tennessee and other places. 184.174.175.216 (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@184.174.175.216: we'd need a source for that though to be able to add it to any of the articles. Imzadi 1979 → 01:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Added back in ‘Decommissioned’ Interstates

I would like to voice a problem of where you’ve reverted my edit that removes false information on List of Interstate Highways. All of the “Former” Interstates where never signed so why should they stay? Qutlook (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not false information. They were active proposals for a number of years. Imzadi 1979 → 02:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I never said they where false information, they where never signed to they shouldn’t really count as decommissioned Interstates Qutlook (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Your first message above called it "false information". Imzadi 1979 → 04:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Then why did you remove my I-67 Edit for the list? It was a former proposal back when the system was created. Qutlook (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pr browse, Template:Vi browse, and Template:Gu browse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to Template talk:Infobox road/link/USA

 – – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Pr browse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: they should have been in use. They're to create a second browser line in the infobox when a second (or more) non-consecutive highway designation is merged into an article. I've found test cases for each to be used, but they're not isolated cases, so that count will only increase as infobox browsers are fully/correctly deployed in the territories. Imzadi 1979 → 18:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Well done, and thank you. I poked around before nominating to see how the state templates were used, but it was unclear to me whether there was any potential use for them in territories.

While I'm here, there are some entries on the list of untranscluded templates listed at User:Jonesey95/unused templates that you might know something about, starting with entry 3117 ({{Infobox road/browselinks/ARAB}}) down to 3188 ({{Infobox road/shortdesc/USA}}). Are those unused templates planned for use, or have they been replaced by some other system of templates and modules, or is there some other explanation for their lack of transclusions? We're trying to clean up the template space a bit by removing unused, unusable, and orphaned templates; they create a maintenance burden when software updates require bots and gnomes to go through and update links or syntax. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Jonesey95: I've been sort-of maintaining {{Infobox road}} lately, so I will go through those and G6 tag anything that can be deleted. –Fredddie™ 19:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

All of the Infobox road/link/[A-Z][A-Z][A-Z] listed (lines 3125-3169) can be deleted. –Fredddie™ 20:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to put those /link templates into a multi-template TFD. What would a good explanation be, aside from them being unused? Has their functionality been rolled into another template or module? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Precisely, functionality has been moved to Lua modules. To be honest, I'm not even sure how {{Infobox road/link/USA}} has any uses. –Fredddie™ 03:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. I have nominated them for deletion here. If you have any insight into the others in that list, please let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

As for {{Infobox road/link/USA}}, I have created a simple test case in my sandbox that calls that template. That might help you narrow it down. Imzadi1979, if we have hijacked your talk page and should take this discussion elsewhere, just let us know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox road/link/* used in Template:Infobox road/meta/spur of -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95, Fredddie, and WOSlinker: can this discussion go elsewhere? I'm getting email notifications for every post, and they're not really for me. Thanks! Imzadi 1979 → 13:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Highway vs AR

I am curious, why do you change "Highway 52" to "AR 52" on Arkansas articles? Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 22:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Brandonrush: for consistency with how {{jct}} outputs the abbreviation. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

State abbreviations

What MOS are you talking about? MOS:POSTABBR says otherwise. MB 17:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

City Route 99

Should I just move City 99 to the current highways section 38.103.204.42 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Curious

Mostly to hopefully learn something that I missed. Why the comma at the Fitz article? North8000 (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

MOS:GEOCOMMA answers the question, North8000. When a state name is appended to a city name like that, it’s treated an appositive. Or, because the state name is set off from the city name by a comma, we need to put another after the state name to balance it. Imzadi 1979 → 22:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Imzadi 1979 → 22:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.! North8000 (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: I fixed the link to the correct MOS reference above. Imzadi 1979 → 02:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

((Vol.)) in |volume= parameter

Regarding this edit, due to updates to the CS1-style referencing templates, including the text volume or vol. in the |volume= parameter is now deprecated (have no idea where the exact discussion is, it's been awhile) and including that text flags a CS1 referencing error and puts the article into the error category Category:CS1: long volume value, which isn't desirable. Hog Farm _Talk 19:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And until they fix the template to add the text label, we have the visual inconsistency issues that books have bold volume numbers and magazines have "Vol." prefixing the number. I'd rather present a visually consistent display than worry about that error category until they can fix the problem they created. Imzadi 1979 → 21:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm: That category is a tracking category, not an error category. It was created to find out how many pages meet the criteria described. The category page explains that no changes are required when this category is present. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

what do i do

It said that persistant violators will get blocked and I uploaded a bunch of images that I didn't know were copyrighted so I think I will get blocked from editing. it says to change the license on them but I don't know how Thewikieditorman47 (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

FAC mentor request

Jumping through veritable hoops here for what I see are preferences (not requirements) + a willingness to make changes...all I'm getting are obstacles... I could use another set of eyes on Texas A&M University for FAC. Buffs (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Side note: love your user name. Neeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd (also, "Live long and prosper" + "Make it so"). Your thoughts on Lower Decks? Buffs (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar of Good Humour!

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		Your punning on Meat Loaf's RD nom demands recognition 💖 — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, OwenBlacker. Imzadi 1979 → 02:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility fix issues?

What's with your obsession with accessibility fixes? Like on this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Lakes_Intercollegiate_Athletic_Conference&diff=1079127891&oldid=1079124208 (plus the ones you did later on with the other tables). Plus, the departing member's name on the row isnt highlighted based on the color it represents as it should be. As if you like seeing the "institution" column being in a dark gray shade compared to the rest of the the columns on those tables. jlog3000 (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I was just updating the tables to follow the bet practices at MOS:DTT, which improves the accessibility of the tables for the benefit of readers using screen reader or other accessibility software. As the name of the institution is the subject of each table row, it should be coded as the row header. Imzadi 1979 → 23:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what do you mean by it should be coded as the row header? Because on other tables for other athletic conferences, there wasn't any need nor it's an issue in that regard. jlog3000 (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

To tag a table cell as a header, we use ! instead of |. Then we should distinguish between column headers and row headers by way of scope="col" or scope="row". Yes, that has the effect of using a darker shade of gray to indicate that it is a header cell. If other tables on other articles are doing this wrong, then we should strive to improve them as well in due course so that they may be improved to proper standards. Imzadi 1979 → 23:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Strive in what sense or context? Just cuz one row is fully in a different color shade cuz only one column should be the superior or dominant one based on that dark shade of grey due to that coding policy? jlog3000 (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Accessibility is an important consideration, sometimes even over cosmetic details, some of which may be temporary. Imzadi 1979 → 01:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Fine, have it your way. But please DON'T affect the other columns (like the enrollment one when the data should be aligned to the right when it makes no sense, hence they should be centralized by default), except the 1st column (the "Institution" one) in regards with the proper row headers. jlog3000 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Numbers should be right aligned to aid in legibility, especially when they aren't all in the same order of magnitude. That's pretty standard (or should be) when dealing with columns of numbers as numbers. There's a reason Excel et al. do that, which is to aid in legibility and comprehension: the digits in the ones place line up, the tens places line up, etc., and numbers of a larger order of magnitude run farther to the left than numbers of a smaller order of magnitude. Imzadi 1979 → 02:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

But Wikipedia isn't Excel, and Excel isn't Wikipedia. jlog3000 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

BC Highway 3 and 113 Route Markers

Hello Imzadi1979, I noticed that you tagged my new images for these route markers as copyright violations, and while I'm not sure what if any difference this might make, I feel it necessary to pass along that while nearly identical in appearance, these images are NOT the copyrighted SVGs that have been problematic in such articles before, however they are actually versions I created myself using graphic design programs. I actually did so trying to avoid the aforementioned issues. I do also apologize for messaging you in two locations, but I did so only to ensure that my message is received before the images are deleted. Thanks. Fhsig13 (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fhsig13: it's the design that's subject to copyright, not the specific files. So even recreating the design as a PNG would still trigger the copyright issue. Imzadi 1979 → 15:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: I see. In that case, would you happen to know of any other solution to this problem? Since there’s no free version of these images, and there versions located within the respective articles on each highway were only approved for free use in those specific articles, I’d really like to find a solution so that the pictograms for these highways in other articles, and the master list article, are correct.Fhsig13 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fhsig13: you have three options moving forward:

1. Get the province to license the design under a license compatible for our use.
2. Use the other generic highway marker design for those highways. At 20px of width, the difference in Hwy 113 markers wouldn't be that noticeable, although the Hwy 3 design would look different even at that size.
3. Do nothing and wait for the crown copyright to lapse on its own, at which time we don't need to follow fair-use rules and the SVGs can be used on all articles.

That's basically all any of us could do for now. Imzadi 1979 → 22:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

To option #3, Crown copyright lapses 50 years after first publication (or first signposting in this case), and the date of lapse is the January 1 of the following calendar year. So if a unique marker design was first posted in March 1972, the 50-year waiting period would be up, but we would have to wait until this coming New Year's Day for the copyright to expire. The Crow's Nest Highway version of the Hwy 3 marker will be public domain on January 1, 2029, assuming the marker was put into use during calendar year 1978. (The article on the highway says that it gained the name in 1977, and the markers "appear[ed] a few years later", which is cited to a 1978 newspaper article that I can't read at the moment.) Based on its article, the Hwy 113 marker will be public domain on January 1, 2057, because the signs were first used in summer 2006. Imzadi 1979 → 23:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Thank you, but I still don't understand how fair use can be rationalized for the SVGs use in each highway's respective article, but not for the pictograms elsewhere. Do you think it would be at all possible to rationalize it successfully? I tried years back was too new to this to formulate a satisfactory rationale. Fhsig13 (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fhsig13: when dealing with fair-use images, we have to follow WP:NFCC, which limits the usage of such images to the locations where it is necessary. Criterion 10c says that we have to list specific articles where the image will be used and have a NFC rationale for each article listed on the image's description page. Per WP:FUR, w can write a proper rationale for a highway marker for its respective article because it is "the primary means of visual identification of the subject". We cannot do the same for other articles because Hwy 3 or Hwy 113 is not the subject of those articles. Imzadi 1979 → 08:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Thank you for the clarification. Out of curiosity, could I not argue fair use under WP:FUR, given that "the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media"? I feel as though the significance and meaning of the route numbers in question is lost when they are left to be identified by the incorrect, outdated shields and that simply stating what marker they are signed with doesn't really accomplish that goal. Fhsig13 (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fhsig13: in short, no. A FUR is only going to be valid for the subject article. To be perfectly honest, the marker graphics for any highway other than the subject of the article would be considered decorative. You can click on the marker at the top of the infobox to load the image's description page, but you cannot click on any generated by {{jct}} or {{routelist row}} because they're considered decorative. That also means a FUR for those uses will fail, full stop. We could turn off all graphics in the jct template tomorrow, and proper meaning would still be conveyed to readers in junction lists. Imzadi 1979 → 17:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) One thing that is an option would be to connect with someone at the BC MoTI and get them to fill out the commons:COM:RELGEN which would allow us to upload the BC 3 and BC 113 shields to Commons. BC 5 and BC 16 are covered under a different VRT ticket, but iirc the rationale was kind of tenuous. –Fredddie™ 06:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

That would be option #1 in my list. Imzadi 1979 → 08:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Interstate 49

Should an article for the part of I-49 that will through Texas have its own article at some point? I-49 northern part of Arkansas will probably have its exit numbers renumbered in the future. Cwater1 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cwater1: what are you asking me? Imzadi 1979 → 17:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

If the article for the I-49 called Interstate 49 in Texas should be created? Cwater1 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Interstate 196 scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 8 May 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 8, 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing links in AASHTO

All that time to link cities on the AASHTO lists... gone. Ouch! I guess those are not considered as helpful anymore? --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I was just trying to simplify everything because the table was getting overrun with links. Imzadi 1979 → 22:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Washuotaku: I'm starting some transcriptions again. I'm working tonight on the 1920s reports. I found some meeting dates in Newspapers.com. Then I'll probably start working on the others that are in the big table. Imzadi 1979 → 00:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Ha, my focus has been diverted lately in playing Elden Ring. I probably should comb through the 1930s at some point. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Washuotaku: I'm starting to work on transcribing more of the 1960s. I can probably average about one document an evening for a while, especially when some are 10+ pages. Then I'll probably work on more of the 1950s to slowly get the collection on Wikisource moving backwards to the beginning. Imzadi 1979 → 22:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess I should stop goofing off and try to help getting the decisions written over. --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Washuotaku: I need to play around with the 1928 file. I transcribed it, but I think based on your work that two sections are the 1929 decisions? Really, we should get fresh copies of these earlier documents that are the Executive Committee minutes so that we can transcribe the full minutes and get proper documentation for citation. Imzadi 1979 → 23:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing photomontage table from Delta County, Michigan

I reverted your revert. The table has been up since April 2020, and the article has been edited by enough other editors since then. Also I am of the tentative understanding that User:Bigturtle is supportive of the table. The policy you linked to states "please provide an encyclopedic context", which was already provided with the sentence preceding the table. The policy does not prohibit a multiple-image compilation at the bottom of the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Per the guidance at Template:Photo montage, I've removed that template, which is not supposed to be used outside of an infobox or sidebar template. I've swapped it out with a proper gallery, which will require individual captions for each image. I dispute your rationale that there is an encyclopedic context for that many duplicative photos based on one sentence. Maybe that sentence might provide context for a single photo, but not that many. Imzadi 1979 → 22:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A montage as similar to a single photo in terms of weight, so a single line is enough for a montage. A single line isn't enough for a gallery because the photos are larger; I'll add captions. I wasn't aware of that guidance, but since it doesn't say you can't ever use montages in the article in the Manual of Style it isn't absolutely necessary to follow the guidance.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone noticed your gallery and there is a discussion at Talk:Delta_County,_Michigan#On-orbit_photos.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: thank you for the four separate edits to my talk page. That generated four separate email notifications. I've also got the article in question on my watchlist, so you didn't need to notify me of the discussion that was opened. Imzadi 1979 → 18:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Interstate 196, introduced (in 2013): "I-196, a highway designation so well loved it was built twice in Michigan"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Michigan highway system.

Always think of you when I see a Michigan highway on the featured articles list. Thanks for your work! SkyeBirds (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Moultrie Interchange

According to sources in the article of Christmas Moultrie, said interchange on I-95 in Georgia was named for him. I was wondering if you would be able to link him in the correct location? I saw mentions of "Moultrie Road" but not the interchange itself. Seasider53 (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I did find this: "On a December morning in 2008, she and her sisters, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren gathered at Ga. 21 and Interstate 95, where officials dedicated the Christmas Moultrie Interchange." Seasider53 (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

We normally don't mention memorial interchange names in articles, so I wouldn't add that to the article, sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 22:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

County Roads of Illinois?

The County Highways of Wisconsin got axed, but what about the County Roads of Illinois? A couple counties have been done over the last decade or so, and I would like to keep going with it unless all County Roads will get the axe at some point. Mecheyethe4th (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Those slipped through, and they'll be nominated someday for deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 16:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mecheyethe4th instead of making lists of county roads, why not make a capstone article about the county road systems or the different classifications of county roads. For example, Iowa has a signed farm-to-market road system that's strictly defined but nearly everything else is a generic county road. I have a draft started on Iowa, so don't do that state. –Fredddie™ 02:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I do a lot of data entry so making tedious lists is actually something I unironically enjoy! Oh well. I'll take a look at what you suggested and see what I can do with it. Thank you both! Mecheyethe4th (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Those images are not copyrighted

Those images are not copyrighted, the author has allowed them to be used by the public. Please undo your edits. DiscoA340 (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Please confine this discussion to one website and not two. Imzadi 1979 → 00:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Roads categorization

Hello. I manually reverted one of your edits before realizing it was a manual revert of one of mine.

I've always thought roads were on the edge of what I consider a structure. I am influenced however by categories such as Category:Lists of roads by country. Since its creation, it has been categorized at Category:Lists of buildings and structures by country for nearly 10 years. In addition, there are edits like this [1] which has stood since 2013.

On the other hand, Category:Roads by country is not categorized like this, and is instead in a tree from Category:Infrastructure by country.

I wish it were clear one way or another. Are you aware of any previous discussions? --DB1729 (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not. I will note that we have an oddity with this extra categorization. Category:Lists of roads in Michigan is already in Category:Michigan transportation-related lists, which is in turn in Category:Michigan-related lists. Putting it in Category:Lists of buildings and structures in Michigan, which is also in Category:Michigan-related lists means it's in two branches of the same category tree.

I would not consider a road a structure. An individual bridge, yes, but not a roadway. Imzadi 1979 → 13:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it is as structure, but we already have a category for roads. –Fredddie™ 15:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:SUBCAT a page should not appear in both a subcategory and its parent category. There's no reason a page can't appear in multiple child cats from the same parent. Count how many times John Glenn appears in the subcats of Category:People from Ohio by occupation. Directly in at least three: Aviators, Engineers and Military personnel, not to mention subcatted further as a politician. Examples are countless. In fact, your comment about bridges stumbles onto an example: Category:Lists of bridges in the United States is categorized in both Category:Lists of buildings and structures in the United States and in Category:United States transportation-related lists. Both of which belong to Category:United States-related lists. Nothing in WP:SUBCAT nor in Wikipedia:Categorization forces us to choose between two suitable categories. (I have received a bit of push-back here and there over the past several months for removing overcategorization of parent cats and ruthlessly applying WP:SUBCAT to list articles. That's happening with a guideline to back me up. If I start insisting every page can be in only one subcat per each parent, they would surely run me off this site.)

So is roads suitable in buildings and structures? After thinking this over, I am leaning toward agreeing with you that roads should not be in buildings and structures. There is an argument to be made that roads are structures. Without getting too detailed, their foundations are built up higher from the immediate elevation and their construction is more than just laying a strip of asphalt along the ground. However, 'being a structure' is imo, not a 'defining characteristic' of a road. In your reply, the term "roadway" sparked an important point. Are we talking about the physical structure that is a road? Or, instead are these articles mostly about the routes?

I am not planning to mass remove buildings and structures categories from all roads across the site. Most country's roads are like this: See examples Category:Lists of roads in Italy and Category:Lists of roads in Japan. I've not even decided if I want to revert my edits for US states just yet, but if you wish to revert those, then I will not stand in your way and you are welcome to do so.

I have decided to stop adding Lists of buildings and structures to any road categories and articles. DB1729 (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not put Category:Lists of roads in XX in Category:Lists of buildings and structures in XX if they're not already? –Fredddie™ 23:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald

Moved to Talk:SS Edmund Fitzgerald § Launching

 – Imzadi 1979 → 17:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Interstate 280 (New Jersey)

Thanks for making the changes in this edit and maintaining consistency. Alansohn (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

M-42 (Michigan highway)

I uploaded two photos for M-42: the eastern and western terminus signage. The M-42 article seems short, and I'm not sure how to add the images without messing up the visuals and format, which I tend to do whenever I add highway signs. If you'd like, you can insert one or both of these images into the M-42 article. Thank you. —Notorious4life (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Notorious4life: given the size of the page, adding the photos would just clutter it. I did export the photos to Commons, which is where you really should be uploading your photos. Then I created a category on Commons for the M-42 photos, both yours and another that was there. That allowed me to addd {{commons category}} to the external links section of the M-42 article. That Commons box is the preferred method to link additional photos to an article if they're not present in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 19:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Irish R roads

It would be helpful if you could explain why you think IrlProj ratings for this class of article is wrong, rather than simply reverting the class. Sarah777 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sarah777: those articles are definitely not Start- or C-Class for WP:HWY. Many people dislike or don't understand how an article can have differing assessments an insist they have to match. I'd say that several of them are not Start-Class overall because the text is padded with a direct quotation to make it appear longer. Imzadi 1979 → 20:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

As a quick followup, the Rater gadget uses ORES to suggest an assessment, and several of have Stub as the suggested class. Imzadi 1979 → 20:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

OK. The only reason I've synchronised the ratings across projects is that I was told the Project should be irrelevant to the class. But for IrlProj we have a clear idea of what distinguishes a start from a stub. I'll rate "roads" for IrlProj and leave other projects as they are. Sarah777 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk page revert at Talk:Road signs in the United States

Sorry, I should have left an edit summary noting WP:BANREVERT. The IP is checkuserblocked for block evasion - they're a banned editor evading their block and there are no edits to the thread from good faith editors.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

US Route 412 in Arkansas

Sorry, I didn't see or realize that it was a self-published source. I replaced it with a better source. Cwater1 (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Errored deletion of BS-6S (Navasota Business Loop) on Texas State Highway 6 page

I would like to inquire respectfully, what the reason for the removal of the Navasota Business Loop section was? And the placing of the route under the BS 6-R section (Brian-College station? Are there updated TXDOT records suggesting the 6-R loop has been removed? If so, why not reformat the section to reflect the retirement of said business loop instead of deleting the section? Thanks and regards. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 17:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@MatthewAnderson707: I think we have some weird edit conflict or something at work. It should be restored now. Imzadi 1979 → 19:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979 Alright. Thanks for letting me know. I was wondering why things were very strange with that edit. Have a nice night sir. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 03:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

U.S. Route 8

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 26 September 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I will be out of town most of that week. I have a training class out of town the night of 9/21, and then on 9/22 I head out of state for a long weekend event through 9/26. Then I turned around and head out of town again on 9/27 to attend an Honor Flight with my father the day of 9/28, returning to Michigan from DC late that night. In any case, if the article runs on that day, I won't be paying any attention to it for over a week. Imzadi 1979 → 02:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

If I find a way to switch it, I'll let you know. Otherwise, I'll just try to keep an eye on things. Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Texas State Highway 16

The reason for my edit to the southern terminus in the infobox was that the slash and “in” were misaligned with the rest of the row. Seems to happen when there is a banner. Using {{plainlist}} seems to fix the issue. Dough4872 00:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dough4872: it's not misaligned in my browser without plainlist. Imzadi 1979 → 00:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I wonder what could be causing the issue for me then. I’m using Safari on an iPad. Dough4872 00:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Plainlist is no longer necessary in the junction field because the class is coded in already. You can simply do the bulleted list. –Fredddie™ 00:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Route 66

It seems that every other source points towards June 27. The NPS only mentions that the AASHTO accepted the suggestion to decommission on the 26th. Britannica, Time magazine, the Cincinnati Enquirer, The History Channel, all point to June 27th. Using the report also smells a bit like WP:PRIMARY, considering how many secondary sources there are... X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 03:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I-85

Hi! Care to explain why the information I put on the I-85 page doesn’t belong in the lead? 2600:1004:B0C1:AD93:FC40:D391:676:7679 (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I posted my reasoning at User talk:2600:1700:2CD0:6AA0:552A:D04:33EB:9D10 earlier.

The previous version of the lead section is preferable. The lead of an article should summarize all sections, and your edit removes the piece of the future section summary that is there. It also added details not really present in the article. Please don't revert your edit back into the article.

Since it seems your ISP rotates you through several IPs regularly, communications with you may be difficult, and I would recommend registering for an account if you intend to regularly contribute just so that you'll have a single talk page to receive communications. Imzadi 1979 → 13:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY

Hi Imzadi... long time no speak. I disagree with your assessment, and this has been brought up on the drama boards often enough to make me feel quite comfortable in my understanding. The key passage is in the second paragraph, "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation". This is followed by, "Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." When you combine that with the opening phrase in OR, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." That opening paragraph then ends with "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not just some wiki. When someone adds large blocks of unsourced text, that is simply not acceptable. Supposedly, AGF, editors are not simply creating these large blocks out of whole cloth, but are gleaning them from reliable sources. If so, what is the big deal about simply adding the citation from where they are getting it? Without giving out the editor's name, one was temporarily blocked for refusing to understand this concept, when making numerous river/stream articles several years ago. They would put in large blocks of text describing the route of the river, tributaries, etc. Regardless, I've left that discussion alone pretty much due to the incivility of some of the comments, but due to my respect for you, I thought you should receive a reply, but didn't want to add to that particular discussion. Take care, and thank you for all your hard work on the project. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your position, and I don't think that your quotations quite support that position as they are written.

First off, unless you have reason to doubt the veracity of the content, it wouldn't be "likely to be challenged". If it's not likely to be challenged, then technically a citation is not required, just nice to have.

Next, in regards to OR, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources..." is not the same as " you must cite reliable, published sources...". In this case, the editor in question wasn't given a chance "to be able to cite".

So, I think the wiser course of action, when you don't have a history with a specific editor that would negate good faith is not to delete text, but rather to request a citation. (If you know that text is false, that's a different story. BLP situations are also a different story.) In effect, make a polite challenge. Then if citations aren't added in a reasonable period of time, then delete as now have "material whose verifiability has been challenged ... [that] must include an inline citation".

That all said, route descriptions are really one of the easiest parts of a roadway article to write and cite. Because they're so easy (seriously, a printed map and Google Maps), they're also easy for the challenger to add. Imzadi 1979 → 14:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. In an encyclopedia, if I come across uncited material, I challenge it. And they were given a chance to provide sourcing: I removed the material, letting them know it was unsourced, and they simply reinserted it without providing the citation(s). Regarding tagging vs. removal, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but when there are such large segments of an article uncited, there are only two courses of action, draftify, or removal. Especially when an article has sat for several months without improvement. If these had been newly created articles, I most likely would have tagged them as needing improvement. And I definitely agree with you regarding false info. That wasn't what I was saying, simply that this needed a citation. Regardless, thanks for your efforts, and kind discourse.

Hmmm... here's a question though, you're a NPPer, right? You moved these back to mainspace, why aren't they automatically marked "reviewed"? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Quite frankly, your actions were a net negative as they removed content and alienated an editor in an underrepresented topic (South Africa). This isn't BLP. Yes, you were technically entitled to remove the content, but actually doing it was highly unwise where better communication (a user talk page message) or even adding the citation yourself would have sufficed. Please do better to build up the encyclopedia (both content and editors) next time. --Rschen7754 18:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:WikiProject Indian roads articles needing reassessment

A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject Indian roads articles needing reassessment indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello

@Pencileraser49: we cannot use self-published sources, like a blog, as citations in our article. https://www.utahadvocates.com/the-top-5-most-dangerous-roads-in-arizona/ is a blog In short, it can't be used in the article, so I deleted your addition to Interstate 10 in Arizona. If you could find a newspaper article with the same information, that could be used instead. Imzadi 1979 → 02:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

U.S. Route 8

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 1 December 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Stop

Why do you keep removing my historical info. I know what happened at my place of business 😡 you just keep removing stuff for the fun of it! Shame on you! 24.213.40.75 (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

If you work there, you cannot edit the article. You have a WP:COI, so you have to follow those rules, which means making suggestions for edits with reliable sources (not blogs) on the talk page for others to implement. If you have specific questions, you can always email me directly as well. Imzadi 1979 → 01:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk page revert

I just noticed that you reverted my edit on WT:USROADS. It was not my intention for it to come across as canvassing, and I would have revised it if I had been notified. However, reverting the edit was not the most appropriate action here. Next time, please notify the user on their talk page, as it clearly says in WP:CAN#How to respond to canvassing. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dream out loud: the project has been under unusual scrutiny lately, and a talk page thread clearing telling people to support FACs from the project would be quite inflammatory to editors who have openly accused the project of supporting USRD articles for promotion just because they are USRD articles. Leaving it there or drawing additional attention to it would have been a very bad move. Imzadi 1979 → 13:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Interstates

Why did you remove my Mile marker additions? 2600:1008:B15E:798E:487D:A96D:5AFB:EA94 (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary to the text of the lead on that list. Interstate Highway System has the information already in the overview of the system. Imzadi 1979 → 19:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Importance of Abuja-Kaduna highway

I see you tagged this one as "Mid" importance for WikiProject highways in this edit. Can you possibly confirm if this was intended, and if so, why? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: that's the usual importance assessment for major intercity highways in the project. The higher importances are normally for lists and articles about systems of highways, and low is usually for minor highways/intracity routes. Imzadi 1979 → 07:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. I'd initially thought it was "Low", but wasn't aware of the specific importance scheme for Highways. I am now. Thanks. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) you can think of it as a way to manage expectations of what an article should look like just by seeing where it's classified. Then the article class tells you what it does look like. –Fredddie™ 04:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:K-101 (Kansas highway)/GA2

Imzadi1979, will you be returning to your review here? It's been a few weeks since the nominator last posted. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Imzadi1979, it's been two weeks since the above post. Can you please let us know whether you plan to return, or if we need to find a new reviewer? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

C-66 (Michigan county highway)

Hi. I'm a little confused about why you reverted my edit showing C-66 ends at M-119 and C-77. You said it implied that M-119 and C-77 were concurrent when they're not, but if that logic held, then the eastern terminus would also be incorrectly notated as US 23 and M-27 are also not concurrent. My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the terminus listing in the infobox is to denote all highways located at the terminus of the subject highway. With that logic, the eastern terminus as it is shown would be correct, as US 23 and M-27 both intersect C-66 at its eastern terminus. All material I've seen on Wikipedia and elsewhere suggests that C-77 is concurrent with C-66 in Cross Village, and both end at M-119 at the same intersection, thereby C-77 should be shown as a highway located at the western terminus, which is how it is described in the article's lead. If you could help me understand why this change was made, that would be very helpful. Thank you from a fellow Michigander. MrGerudoMan (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

M-119/C-77 = M-119 and C-77 are concurrent with each other. This is false. An IP editor from Mount Pleasant (perhaps yourself before you created your account) has been messing around with the junctions in infoboxes, and I've been cleaning up those specific edits to remove issues they created, including that false concurrency implication.

As for US 23 and M-27, that wasn't part of the problematic IP edit on the C-66 article, so I wasn't looking at that. I've now corrected that issue by removing M-27 from the junction to avoid a US 23/M-27 = US 23 and M-27 are concurrent falsehood. Imzadi 1979 → 05:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Interestate 75 in Georgia

Hello!

I disagree with your notion that my additions to that article were "Overlinking", per the WP:OVERLINK information. I think in those charts, having the clear connection to the, for the example of Georgia, Florida and Tennessee continuations improves the navigation of that chart to the next relevant items and the articles they're on. Zacatero (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Zacatero. In your edit, the link to I-75 in Florida is present in two places in the first row of the table, the destinations column and the notes. Likewise, the link to I-75 in Tennessee is also present in two places in the last row of the table, again the destinations column and the notes. We only need to link it once per row, so yes, it's overlinked. That's why I reverted the edit. Imzadi 1979 → 00:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, I did not see those links. Thank you! Zacatero (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for U.S. Route 8, introduced (in 2013): "This article is a bit of a departure for me in that most of it is about a highway that isn't in Michigan. US 8 spans 280 miles (450 km) in the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review for M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)

I have nominated M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 22:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Imzadi1979!

Happy New Year!

Imzadi1979,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help/explanations with the Nassau County road template (and apologies for my mistake)

Thank you for all your help with the Nassau County Roads template! I apologize for my mistake. While I have made many templates before, this is the first time I have made one specifically for county roads, and I was trying to follow the one for neighboring Suffolk County – except I was confused since Nassau has the weird situation of having both numbered and lettered routes (and even weirder is how it does not necessarily correlate to the road's importance or length). And the explanations you left in the change descriptions (and your edits themselves) have definitely helped me to better understand what to do going forward.

Again, my apologies, and much thanks for your kind, excellent assistance!

Cheers,

AITFFan1 (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I-84 Connecticut

I see that you've added "new" exit numbers to the I-84 article in Connecticut. However, these exit numbers are not currently in use, and resigning isn't scheduled for several years into the future. Do you know of a way label them as future or proposed, rather than new? Thanks! –Zfish118^⋉talk 23:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zfish118: I only cleaned up edits from CJTV527 that added them. I've just reverted to the revision before their edits. Imzadi 1979 → 23:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah gotcha, thanks! –Zfish118^⋉talk 02:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

SABRE Question

Hi Imzadi, how are you? I have a question for you - could I copy from SABRE if I put into my own words? Don't want to get banned for doing something stupid. Would greatly appreciate your answer. Thank you. Roads4117 (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Roads4117: there are two answers to your question:

1. Yes, you may copy information from any source provided you phrase your additions to our articles in your own words, or succinctly use direct quotations, so that you don't run afoul of copyright protections on the source material, and provided that you correcting cite the source you used so that others may verify the information that you added.
2. No, you should not copy from sources that are self-published and instead rely only on reliable sources. There are exceptions for using a self-published source for information about itself, like quoting an organization's website for basic details about the organization, but unless you're writing about SABRE, that exception would not apply. There are also exceptions about SPSs written by experts in the specific field.

Both of these answers are correct, so which one should you rely on? Well, really the best reply is that any source is better than no source for the information that you're adding to an article, and if the information is sufficiently non-controversial, even an SPS should do in a pinch. That said, you should strive to find an RS to replace that SPS as soon as possible. No article will be promoted to GA, let alone FA, level with an SPS like SABRE in the footnotes. GA or FA might not be your immediate goal, but the sooner you use the best sources possible, the easier it will be someday for someone to polish a nominate an article for promotion. Also, quality sources are valuable in case someone is tempted to nominate the article for deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 08:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Imzadi, sorry for the late reply - been busy with school in the past few weeks. If I understand correctly I can if I put most of it in my own words, and use reliable sources - am I correct? Just to be on the safe side, should I send you through my version, so you can compare to approve or decline? Many thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Roads4117: you should thoroughly read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. It explains many things related to copyrights, paraphrasing and citations. Imzadi 1979 → 17:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

OK then, will do when I next have a minute, and will notify when I have done so. Roads4117 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Roads4117: I don't need a report. Imzadi 1979 → 19:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

OK then Roads4117 (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I need help

Hey Imzadi. I am having trouble adding an interactive map to both the U.S. Route 30 and U.S. Route 40 pages. No matter how many times I edit the code, even when it seems correct, it never seems to make the correct map that can be shown. Can you please check on the maps and find what the problem is in the code? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahas P. (talk • contribs) 15:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sahas P.: are there .map files on Commons for each state? If not, then the missing states won't appear on the map the way you've coded the template. It looks like commons:Data:U.S. Route 30 in Oregon.map doesn't exist, so that's why the map won't appear on U.S. Route 30 in Oregon, and a line segment for Oregon won't appear on U.S. Route 30. Until the missing files are created, the maps won't look work. Imzadi 1979 → 17:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I will try that later. Thanks for letting me know. Sahas P. (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for M-105 (Michigan highway)

M-105 (Michigan highway) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steelkamp (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Contributor Barnstar For your work on M-105 (Michigan highway). Rschen7754 06:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

FAC Mentorship question

Hello! I saw your name listed on the Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC page and was wondering if that offer for mentorship still stands. I've been working on the article Competitive debate in the United States for several months now and recently passed GA review and was wondering if you might take a look at the article or if you had any general tips on navigating the process. I realize this is pretty far outside your wheelhouse as far as the article topic is, but it doesn't cleanly line up with anybody, unfortunately.

I am specifically wondering about what the research process looks like during an FAC nomination. Do reviewers generally do their own research to see if an article is comprehensive, or do they rely on their own knowledge in the area to assess? How does that work if nobody has any subject matter expertise?

Thanks so much for any time you're able to offer, and if it's too much to take on, I completely understand - Just let me know! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@ThadeusOfNazereth: I'd be happy to take a look at the article and answer some questions. The topic might be out of my usual wheelhouse, but I was on the forensics teams for seven years in middle and high school (Michigan Interscholastic Forensic Association) and on the intercollegiate speech team (Michigan Intercollegiate Speech League/Pi Kappa Delta) for two years. I also took Argumentation and Debate and competed at a Novice Debate Association tournament once, so I have official intercollegiate debate experience.

In the FAC process, you'll find a couple of approaches. First, I would suggest reading through each point of WP:WIAFA, the listing of the FA Criteria. Reviewers will often shortcut comments and say "oppose per 1a" if they think that the article isn't written well enough. Of the criteria, #3 and #4 are the easiest to fulfill because they're the most objective. Of note on #3: you should do a quick round of verification on the copyright status and licensing of the media used in the article. If you have any questions as to whether or not an image is properly licensed, it's best to resolve that beforehand.

Reviewers with some knowledge of the topic area are more likely to comment on the comprehensiveness of the topic and the quality of the research. Those are the folks who would opine about whether or not you consulted specific sources and why. They may also do their own research to look for sources that aren't present in the article's reference list. So my fellow roads/highways editors were always the ones to do that with my nominations, and it was always important to have a couple of them give my nominations some review. (We have an A-Class Review process, and sometimes they did that work there and referenced the ACR at FAC when supporting on the subject matter.)

Other editors without that topic knowledge are more likely to focus on the content that's already there. They'd be proofreading for polished prose, looking at how the references are formatted for a consistent styling, engaging on the copyright/licensing status of the media present (images/videos/sound clips) and the captions that are present (an "image review"), etc. Some editors may combine those approaches and look all various aspects and not just one facet.

If this is your first nomination, be prepared for a source check. (These used to be done consistently for first-time nominators.) For that, someone will compare your writing to the citations listed to make sure what is written is backed by its citation. That person could check against every fifth footnote, or every fourth or something. They may check anything that seems controversial or surprising regardless. They usually won't check everything against every citation unless there appear to be issues in the writing. You may be asked to supply scanned copies of print materials. I haven't looked at the article yet, but if you've used any print-only sources from libraries in writing the article, prepare by getting copies from the library in your hands before nominating. (I've kept files with photo copies of my source materials for my articles. I don't necessarily keep whole books, but I have definitely scanned excerpts of what I've cited for future verification.)

Another similar check would be on the quality of the sources used. Sources should be of high quality, so whenever possible, use books from reputable publishers, journals/magazines/newspapers with good reputations, etc. Such a discussion may or may not be had by someone doing a source check.

Before promoting an article, the FAC coordinators are going to look that the review comments touch on all of the criteria (ok, almost no one mentions 1e by name, but anyone can look at the article history to check that one quickly) and that the comments are supportive of promotion. The process can last a while. It used to be 2–4 weeks, but I think it's trended longer now.

One last piece of advice: FAC is a discussion. Someone may oppose promotion and state so on the review page. That doesn't mean the article won't eventually be promoted. Depending on the commentary, you can work with the comments to improve the article and "win over" that reviewer. The FAC coordinators may see that you've fixed the issue and discount the oppose !vote in assessing final consensus. Maybe the person opposed for a reason not in the FA Criteria, and that !vote should be completely ignored. Maybe you have a good reason why you did something a certain way and it's just a difference of opinion. In short: during the course of the nomination, take on board the constructive criticism to improve the article, and be prepared to discuss other situations. Ask questions of the reviewers if you need clarification. Imzadi 1979 → 03:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that detailed advice. Keeping print sources nearby is a good tip as there are a few sources that would not be easy to come by. I think that FAC being a discussion as opposed to a vote makes it a lot more approachable than a process like Wikipedia:FPC - Discussions I've read have given me the impression that it's a pretty collaborative process. On the subject of sources, does the use of primary sources pose an issue? In the "Structure of competitive debate" section I've relied on debate league websites to provide information on the different debate formats. I assumed that was fine since I wasn't using them to show notability, but if FAC looks down on that I might be able to preemptively replace them. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@ThadeusOfNazereth: you'd probably be safer there. If someone else wrote some sort of guide to the format(s), that would be better, but ultimately it comes down to a question of finding the best possible sources for a piece of information. If that means going to the league itself because no one has written it up in a book or article, then that's what you'd have to do. I mean, the alternative is omitting key details otherwise, right? Imzadi 1979 → 05:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Active Traverse City bypass plans

[Edited twice] I just happened upon an MLive article detailing the plans to build a bypass south of downtown. I know that this has been an issue in the context of US-31 for decades but I thought any plans were long dead. This is obviously notable especially taking into account the length and design of the proposed bridge, and can be well sourced, with the above and other articles plus the Grand Traverse County Road Commission East-West Corridor Transportation Study story map and the May 2019 study report linked from the bottom of that. I'm contacting you about this with your long-time experience in editing Michigan articles because I'm not actually sure where it can be noted. It's clear that it's entirely a county project so adding anything to the 31 in Michigan article would be inappropriate, but the GTCRC doesn't have an article (probably correctly) and the project itself wouldn't warrant its own. A transportation subsection of the Traverse City article might work, but the project would be mostly outside of city limits if I'm seeing correctly. Any ideas? Mapsax (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

FAC questions

Hello, I am trying to get Interstate 40 in Tennessee to featured article status. This article recently underwent a peer review where I think most of the remaining issues were addressed. I think the article is about ready to be nominated; however, this would be my first FA, and I'm sure there would likely be a number of objections come up that would be unexpected. When writing this article, I have relied on other Interstate FAs, especially in Michigan, as models. I have also extensively review the FA criteria and recommendations, and have also taken a look at other successful Interstate FA reviews from the last few years. I don't currently see much of a difference between the quality of this article and other highway FAs; however, this particular stretch of highway is different than most. The biggest concern I have that might come up is the length. While this didn't come up during the peer review, I know that there are some users who hold strong opinions about what constitutes being "too long". While the article is approximately 9,800 words in length, pushing it close to the recommended limit suggested at WP:SUMMARY and WP:AS, I will point out that, aside from the obvious fact that all articles are different, this article is somewhat of an outlier within its subject matter for a number of reasons. The stretch of I-40 in Tennessee is the eight-longest segment of interstate highway within a single state (second-longest east of the Mississippi River), and so it is naturally going to be longer than most state-level highway articles. Furthermore, it passes through the three largest metropolitan areas within the state, and naturally has undergone numerous expansion and reconstruction projects since its initial construction, with many more planned for the near future. And add these facts to the highway's connection to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, it's location within one of the most crucial areas in the development of popular music, and the diverse terrain through which it passes that presents numerous geological challenges, this article is bound to be significantly longer than articles about Interstate Highways of similar lengths, such as Interstate 80 in Nebraska or Interstate 90 in Montana. The sections themselves are all at a summary length, with none exceeding four paragraphs. I would appreciate your opinion on whether or not this article would have a decent chance of passing, and any recommended improvements if necessary. Thanks! Bneu2013 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bneu2013: you have to work with the subject of the article. Some topics will have more to say, and some will have less. If you're worried that something is too long, then look through the prose to see what you can trim. Where can you use two words instead of three? Where do you have an extra word that isn't doing work for you? When you have things like the connection to a Supreme Court case, maybe you need to make sure that the other article is doing the work, and you aren't including too much detail in your article. Maybe direct quotations can be rewritten in shorter terms. Is there a sentence that's a tangent?

Maybe you could slim down the route description a bit further by minimizing the level of detail. Maybe the predecessor highway subsection can get a trim. The incidents could be summarized further, and the bridge stuff there could be scaled back as applying to the bridge. Give the entire article some time off and then re-read it with fresh eyes looking for extraneous details that aren't needed. Once you've given the article a good read to see how you could excise some wordiness, I think you'd be fine.

Beyond that, FAC is a discussion, and if you think you meet the criteria, and you have rational reasons to support things that you did in writing the article, you should be able to discuss those reasons in the course of a nomination. I haven't seen an article opposed for being too long, and I don't think this one is egregious, but it might use a little work to tighten the wording further. Imzadi 1979 → 02:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have just finished a number of minor trims and fixes, and think I've addressed most of what there is left to do. The only real major concerns I have remaining are that I would like to replace two of the photos with newer ones of better quality; however, it will most likely be some time before I am able to do so, and I could not find any freely licensed ones elsewhere. That being said, I will be nominating this article as an FAC. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for County Road 186 (Delta County, Michigan)

On 19 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article County Road 186 (Delta County, Michigan), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that due to a dispute over who owned a road in Delta County, Michigan, eight school children missed two weeks of school? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/County Road 186 (Delta County, Michigan). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, County Road 186 (Delta County, Michigan)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

FAC needing reviews

I nominated Interstate 40 in Tennessee as a featured article candidate about three weeks ago, and it has yet to receive any reviewers. I actually posted notifications at WT:USRD and WT:TN, but that doesn't seem to have done any good. If I can't get any reviewers in the next few days, it looks as if the nomination is in danger of being archived. Do you have any ideas about what I can do to get reviewers? Thanks. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Michigan

I removed the unsourced part of an edit at Michigan today. But I see you removed the entire edit last month. I would not object if you nuked it again, as it may be out-of-scope. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I do think it's undue for the state-level article since it seems to overstate the tax implications, especially with the unsourced sentence you had removed. I removed the rest again, but I was reverted saying "[it's] one sentence. Not WP:Undue." *shrugs* Imzadi 1979 → 16:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

How can we work together?

We have different opinions about what an ideal version of the List of Interstates should look like. I think that tension could lead to creating something better as we try to understand each other's concerns and find an approach that addresses both. Is there anything I can do differently to encourage you to cooperate with me on that? You are a lot more experienced than I am so I'm hoping you have advice. Ccrrccrr (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with the text as it has been. Any text can be massaged and polished, but adding more self-referential and redundant wordings doesn't achieve that goal. Imzadi 1979 → 00:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply!

I think there is a misunderstanding. The content that you removed in your recent two edits was not added by me. It has been in the article since 2012. My copy edit did not touch that sentence, and my next edit was to modify it to to move it from what has been there since 2012 to something closer to your preferences.

I came to your talk page to ask a meta question, but if you are instead willing to discuss the article, that's great. I think that discussion would be more appropriate on the artlcle talk page, so perhaps reply there next? Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

How to help the project

To Blaze Wolf and SounderBruce as well. It seems like all I'm doing right now is pissing people off, which is NOT at all my intention; I just want to add helpful information. However, the information I'm providing today, which consists of me literally Bing searching all the main interstate routes for any new news (I use Microsoft Edge for leisure stuff and for grammar edits on Wikipedia; please don't judge), is not working today. In order to not become a burden or a nuisance, can I inquiry about what I can do better to help the project, so I'm not bombarding these articles with unnecessary nonsense? I would really appreciate it. ChessEric 23:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@ChessEric: Nah you didn't make me mad. I saw it as something that is in complete good faith. Something I'd suggest reading is WP:ROUTINE which talks about routine coverage which is what you added to the I8 article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@ChessEric: I'm quite not sure what this about. We normally don't cover routine maintenance in highway article history sections. Otherwise, they'd be full of repaving projects, resigning projects, new line striping, etc. If additional lanes are added, there's something significant about a signage change (conversion to metric, new exit numbering), etc., then that's not routine maintenance anymore and worth including. Imzadi 1979 → 16:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I was asking about what type of things to add to highway articles so that I'm not filling them with nonsense that has to be reverted, which would annoy fellow editors. ChessEric 16:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@ChessEric: I would recommend asking the folks at WikiProject Highways. They would know the answer better than me (and possibly Imzadi). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of County Road 186 (Delta County, Michigan)

The article County Road 186 (Delta County, Michigan) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:County Road 186 (Delta County, Michigan) and Talk:County Road 186 (Delta County, Michigan)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of County Road 186 (Delta County, Michigan)

The article County Road 186 (Delta County, Michigan) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:County Road 186 (Delta County, Michigan) for comments about the article, and Talk:County Road 186 (Delta County, Michigan)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Imzadi 1979, You are the best

Have you ever done the Rhode Island highway articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppywoof (talk • contribs) 17:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Puppywoof: I've worked on various articles in many states. Did you have a specific question? Imzadi 1979 → 01:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

U.S. Route 45 in Mississippi

Let's ignore the irony that the shield that came up for this section was US 45. XD

I was and some future info in for US 45 and was utterly baffled that the route does not have an article for its trek through Mississippi. How do I request for one to be made? ChessEric 21:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@ChessEric: you just need to convert the redirect at U.S. Route 45 in Mississippi into an article. I will note that traditionally don't keep articles that are just a lead and a junction list or even one that's just a lead and an infobox. We'd like to see some real content to justify creating the sub article. Imzadi 1979 → 21:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand. I actually did not realize it was a redirect for some reason. ChessEric 21:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

FAC needing copyedit

Hello, I am still working on getting Interstate 40 in Tennessee to featured article status, and one reviewer has signaled his intention to support if the article receives a thorough copyedit. However, they are threatening to archive the nomination again if it doesn't pick up a support in the next few days, a decision that I disagree with. However, it has been slow to get reviewers, which some have attributed to the maps RfC. I submitted a copyedit request at GOCE, but these requests are taking months to be answered. That being said, do you know of anyone who would likely be willing to copyedit? Thanks. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Howdy.

Hi Imzadi, gentle nudge, can you please try to remember to add a note when you revert, reverting without an explanation does tend to foster this sort of response [2] and makes it tricky to work out what's going on as an uninvolved editor.

Thanks! JeffUK 23:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

ReferenceExpander

Just a friendly heads-up in case you weren't already aware, since it's installed on your common.js: Careless use of ReferenceExpander has caused serious problems. It's currently at MFD, and a large cleanup project is underway to repair the citations damaged by the script. I and several other users have !voted that the script be deleted or disabled, and I wouldn't recommend using it at all unless you thoroughly check every reference it modifies against the previous revision. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation of the script's issues, Folly Mox has provided an excellent summary at the MFD. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Colorado highways

Do you know anything about Colorado highways or are you just a hobbyist? Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I know things about state highways in the US in general. I've worked in the topic area since I created my account, and I've done work on byway articles here in my home state, enough to have the major nuances figured out on what makes a good and focused article in the topic area. Imzadi 1979 → 04:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You started editing Wikipedia at age 15 (if I am correct) and have created a number of very good articles. Unfortunately, I think you are unwarranted in unilaterally deleting one entire Colorado article, six redirects, and entire sections of the List of Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways. Not every article needs to resemble your Pure Michigan Byway article. I think some of your ideas about Wikipedia may be a bit out of date (e.g., See Template:Short description#Template information.) I don't wish to get in an edit war with you. Please leave Colorado highway articles to editors who know Colorado highways. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 07:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you're going to make a personal attack, at least get the editor right. Also, please see WP:OWN. --Rschen7754 18:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. This was not intended as a personal attack. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 20:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Buaidh: you are incorrect about my age, which has no bearing on this discussion, and I think that attempting to mention it here could be viewed as uncivil by some.

Now, that list has been on my watchlist for around 11 years. I've worked on it and other similar lists to improve their general quality since 2021.

Much of the recent editing has confused and conflated different designation types. It would be similar to merging National Register of Historic Places listings in Michigan with List of Michigan State Historic Sites because they're both historic sites, even though those designations are granted by different government agencies. The subject of the article is a state-level designation, and while some of those byways may enjoy additional designations, the focus still needs to be on what the state did instead of federal agencies. My edits were to clarify that distinction and remove content that is overly generic to allow readers to focus on the specific topic.

As for the short description, please see WP:SDNONE. Most other highway lists have the same coding. Imzadi 1979 → 22:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Just commenting here again to note that I have had the various state-level highway lists for all 50 states on my watch list for many years. That includes List of Interstate Highways in X, List of U.S. Highways in X, List of state highways in X and whatever scenic byway lists exist plus the capstone articles on state highway systems themselves. These are all topics that interest me and have interested me for my 17.5 years editing here along with other topics. Imzadi 1979 → 22:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You have a very valid point that state and federal designations should probably be kept separate. I'll create a List of federal scenic byways in Colorado for the federal designations.

As mentioned before, just because you have an article on your watchlist does not give you ownership (see WP:OWN.). The Colorado lists are under the primary purview of WikiProject Colorado who should probably be given consideration.

I'm also sorry about misstating your age. You must have been 14, I assume with your parents permission. Keep up your good work. With my best wishes,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 14:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Buaidh: you're still wrong about my age, and I don't see how that is any issue. Why do you keep bringing it up? Imzadi 1979 → 01:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just meant to say that you've been an editor for a long time. Yours aye, 17:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Buaidh: just a follow up, but highway/byway lists in the United States also fall under the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, and there's no such thing as "primary purview". That's not a trump card that can be played. Imzadi 1979 → 03:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Minnesota State Highway 29

Hi Imzadi1979, while I appreciate your commitment to quality articles, I must disagree with the language choice with regards to my edit of Minnesota Highway 29 in particular. The terms "upgrade" and "widening" are not equals. Widening is a fact, upgrade is an opinion. Not everyone views the two equally, especially if your house was demolished for a widening, you probably would not feel like calling that an upgrade. Therefore, widening or another factual term should be applied, rather than upgrade or improvement. Thanks! Znns (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the engineering of the subject highway, the term is factual. Imzadi 1979 → 03:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Just because engineers throw around the term upgrade, does not make it so. Znns (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

What is wrong with using the term widening? Znns (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing was wrong with the previous wording, used by editors from many countries, to describe a change in the engineering and design of a roadway as an "upgrade" or an "improvement".

If this were really an issue, other editors would have commented about the terminology when various articles went through the appropriate quality review processes like GAN or FAC. Yet, they did not. You may disagree, which is your right, but before you continue to edit many articles, you might want to discuss these changes further. Imzadi 1979 → 04:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you answer my question please? Znns (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Znns: please stop. You've been changing terminology used by editors from Australia, Germany, Hungary, India, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States. That displays a commonality to the phrasing across borders and native languages.

In terms of classification of a highway, changing it to follow Interstate Highway standards (or freeway standards) is an upgrade because the classification is considered higher on the tiers. The same would be said in other countries of changing a roadway to Motorway standards. Adding additional lanes is also considered an upgrade because that means the highway has additional capacity.

Not everyone views the two equally, especially if your house was demolished for a widening, you probably would not feel like calling that an upgrade. They may not say their life was upgraded, but they would still say the road was. Thus, that appeal to emotion is irrelevant here. Imzadi 1979 → 04:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979 Among highway articles, there are just as many that already use the terms "conversion" or widening" rather than "upgrade" or "improvement". So why does it matter so much to you if all these terms are currently used? Adding additional lanes is not necessarily an upgrade, there are plenty of characteristics to the making of a good highway, such as cost, safety, capacity, and even other less measurable characteristics such as scenic value. Adding lanes therefore should not in and of itself be considered an upgrade. Adding lanes increases cost, reduces scenic value, takes up valuable land, increases emissions, and therefore cannot be categorically considered an upgrade. Znns (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Heyya!

Hi Imzadi1979! Its me, vardhiro. I noticed your changes in the Wikipedia pages regarding highways. I actually added the example of an Indian highway as India is a major contributor in highways along with United States and Germany but it still significantly lacked a number of photos. To comply with your statements, I also removed an image to keep the list of images from becoming insanely long.

I just posted you this so as to avoid any confusion and not create any discord.

Wishing you a good day 🙂

- vardhiro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardhiro (talk • contribs) 16:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vardhiro: I've re-removed your image addition and left the other one you removed out. I also swapped the German example for one from Finland from the gallery. My original objection was that we had three, then four, images up top. The other objection though is that we had all images of divided highways of some sort. The Finnish image is not a divided highway, so it's a good counterpoint to the image of a freeway in Chicago. If we want a really unique example, M-185 on Mackinac Island in the US state of Michigan is a car-free highway traversed by bicycles and horses. Imzadi 1979 → 22:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Former Primary Interstates additions

I didn't know how receptive you would be to this, but I decided to put in former primary interstate highways that I found on the various other interstate pages. The 1st was I-31, while the other two were I-82 and I-86. I just wanted some feedback on whether or not this is a good idea. Also, is there anyway to put these former interstates into a category on the Interstate template? ChessEric 05:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Highways/Assessment

Template:WikiProject Highways/Assessment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

M-30 extension (reexension)

I apologize for goofing up my trying to update the M-30 article. I've forgotten how to do some of this stuff. Anyway, according to MDOT's 2023 Official Transportation Map, Meridan Rd. in Midland and Saginaw Counties has been recommissioned as M-30 from M-46 to M-20, and signage of the road with M-30 signs was scheduled to take place in early 2023, and that's why I tried to do that on the article, but didn't do very well. I know you can do a better job of the update I tried to do. Igo4U (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Igo4U: the extension has been on my radar since we heard that it was happening from the county road commissions, but I've been waiting for proof it's been signed. Since your edits were very incomplete (no updates to the lead, the infobox, or the route description), it was better to revert and un-break the junction list table.

I just checked, and the 2023 Truck Operator's Map definitively marked that segment as M-30. The 2023 Official Transportation Map did change the color of the roadway to red, but MDOT didn't put an M-30 marker on it, so it's a little muddy. I'll see if I can pull some documentation for the transfers from the country road commissions and get a proper update that doesn't break the junction list table. Imzadi 1979 → 02:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Michigan communities format

While I know highways are your expertise, especially in the state of Michigan, I would like your opinion on another matter regarded Michigan municipalities and unincorporated communities.

A newer editor recently went through several township articles in the state and began eliminating the standalone "Communities" section and combining that information into the "Geography" section. Additionally, that editor deleted some maps and alleged unreferenced information (including one paragraph where the reference itself was deleted with the text). When I messaged that user and asked why they were changing the structure of the articles, I was given an arrogant non-answer that was apparently meant to explain that they were simplifying the content and layout of the articles. That user has only swept through some of the Upper Peninsula townships—the easiest areas to make broad edits due to the low number of municipalities—and appears to have gone away for now. While that user did make some good edits, such as moving the "History" and "Geography" sections in order and also updating population statistics, I strongly disagree with moving the communities of a township into the geography section. I don't know if or where this discussion ever took place—maybe in another state's discussions—but it appears to contrast with what has been the standard format in Michigan township articles for as long as I remember.

I believe eliminating the individual "Communities" section in an article downgrades the importance of the communities themselves, and adding that information to the "Geography" section overloads that section, especially for townships that might have many communities with lengthy descriptions, such as McMillan Township and Augusta Township—the latter of which retains that standard format of an independent "Communities" section. I don't believe that human settlements (e.g. communities) and geography are similar enough to be combined into the same section in an article. I'm not going to revert that editor's layout changes yet, because I don't know what the consensus format should be for these articles. I don't edit articles or engage in discussions for other states, but I would like some solid consistency within the Michigan municipality articles. My understanding is that the basic chronological format for a township layout has always been: Communities > History > Geography > Demographics > References > External links. I would like your thoughts on this matter, as you are a more experienced editor. I'm trying to make municipality and unincorporated community articles consistent across the state, including content and layout—a task that I believe is approximately 43.2% complete. —Notorious4life (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

Hi Imzadi1979! Please do not use misleading edit summaries as you did here [3] where the edit summary says "cleaning up formatting" but the primary function of the edit was removing a notability tag, not cleaning up formatting. And again here [4] we have the edit summary "script-assisted date audit and style fixes per MOS:NUM; harmonize whitespace in citation templates" but again the primary function of the edit appears to have been removing a notability tag. This issue appears to be repeated across a half dozen pages. Please don't do this again, widespread disruption of this sort will get you blocked or banned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

And constantly assuming bad faith about road editors and going around tagging stuff for notability when WP:GEOROAD exists is fine? Sorry, Horse Eye's Back, but at one point you gotta drop the stick. Multiple editors have called you out on this. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

They are misleading whether its intentional or not... Misleading applies to the edit summaries themselves, not Imzadi1979. They are disruptive no matter what Imzadi1979 intends (incompetent editing is as disruptive as malicious editing, if Imzadi1979 is just incompetent thats still an issue... See WP:COMPETENCE). These articles don't appear to pass GEOROAD either... GEOROAD isn't a get out of sourcing free card, we still require significant coverage which these articles don't have. State highways are typically notable... But these are not typical state highways, they're local roads in South Dakota which are state highways for funding reasons (local communities too sparsely populated and poor to pay for their roads due to South Dakota's extremely low population density) not for any of the reasons which GEOROAD intends... South Dakota Highway 130 is clearly not what a typical state highway looks like. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

A typical state highway looks like:

A) A road maintained or owned by a state which shows up on the Department of Transportation (DOT) Geospatial Information Systems (GIS) data, Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) reports, straight line maps, diagrams, state laws and/or state highway logs.

B) Is any road signed as a state highway by said state DOT or local jurisdictions.

C) State highways and federal highways by that extension, can also be designated over ferry routes, as is the case with Washington state highways, U.S. Route 9 and U.S. Route 10.

D) The definition of what a typical state highway may be is often described within the text or code of state laws, passed by a state legislature. Different states have different definitions of what a state highway is.

And yes, routes like SD 130 are typical state highways. North Dakota, New Mexico, Texas, Tennessee, Missouri, Louisiana, Alaska, Hawaii and Oregon, just to name a few, all have state highways which match your description of, and I quote: "local roads in South Dakota which are state highways for funding reasons (local communities too sparsely populated and poor to pay for their roads due to South Dakota's extremely low population density)". Hell, we even have routes like that in Arizona, many of which have the "X" suffix. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 07:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You appear to simply be describing the category of state highway. Yes, a small minority of states have some highways like this... They are not typical of state highways in the United States. Not all state highways are notable (as far as I know nobody disputes this), just most of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see User:Imzadi1979/Notability for a detailed explanation of my thoughts on the matter. Based on the actual notability guideline, blindly tagging state highway articles with {{notability}} is improper procedure. That tag only references GNG, and yet we have an SNG on point that applies to the topic area. Since WP:Notability specifies that an article only needs to meet an SNG or the GNG, not just the GNG, it is not appropriate to tag them that way. These articles meet the SNG. In cleaning up articles, I removed these improper tags, nothing more, nothing less. Imzadi 1979 → 07:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This was not blind tagging, I did a search for sources for each one. You have perhaps noticed that many of the highway pages edited by me are not tagged for notability. Passing GNG or an SNG is not the same thing as being notable (you of course know that), in the future when removing a tag would you mind adding coverage which would indicate notability? Also note that you don't say you're cleaning up in the edit description, your edit summary says "cleaning up formatting" but this has nothing to do with formatting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You stated in other conversations that there's no mal intent or axe to grind with USRD, yet you just went on a tirade marking multiple state highway articles for notablity issues right after Imzadi shared his Notablity essay. Maybe it's just circumstancial evidence, but those actions suggest spiteful behavior and a proverbial middle finger to Imzadi. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 18:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thats circular logic... Why not assume that both edits are related to editing the overarching topic? We're here because Imzadi reverted a number of tags, the tags weren't placed because Imzadi reverted them. Also note that I am a member of USRD in good standing, so what you contend is simply not possible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Being a member of the project doesn't change anything and isn't a convenient shield to hide behind to invalidate an argument. And I was suggesting the new tags were placed as a way to give Imzadi a hard time over his latest argument over state highway notability as disrespect towards his argument. You know what I meant. Don't twist my words. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 19:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

They were not, both pages were editing because I decided to edit the topic area. In a few minutes I will be doing another batch, should I worry about that offending you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you implying thats being done to purposefully get under my skin? That's just very sad, pathetic and quite frankly childish. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 22:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought I was saying the exact opposite of that, my apologies if thats not what was communicated. Shall we cease cluttering Imzadi1979's talk section? I feel bad going on when he has moved on, it feels like outstaying the welcome of my host. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that these edit summaries are disingenuous at best. JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Attached KML/M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway)

Template:Attached KML/M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Title Case for Sign Designations

The official nomenclature for the MUTCD and the SHS are Title Case for sign designations. The database of signs currently in use, upcoming, and discontinued lists the names with Title Case. This is the official nomenclature. The sign outlines that are being updated, and their names, are to bring the page in line with the official literature. Although it is not ideal, municipalities will pull SVG data from the Wikipedia page in order to create their signs. Please revert your change to the Title Case sign designations in order to help achieve the goal of a unified, consistent presentation of the Standard Highway Signs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrystock (talk • contribs) 15:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Barrystock: Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style, and it doesn't not follow the MUTCD in such matters. The fact that the MUTCD or SHS may capitalize something does not mean we do. We follow sources for their information, not their style.

I'll also reiterate that if you are a contractor working on the next edition of the MUTCD, it may not be a good idea for you to be editing articles related to it per our COI policies Following that policy is required of the website's TOS, and repeated violations of that policy may warrant a revocation of editing privileges Imzadi 1979 → 19:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was going to chime in and say that if you're a sign contractor using Wikipedia for your signs, you have bigger problems than simply using Title Case. –Fredddie™ 22:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say the issue here isn't grammar, but conflict of interest, which is against the site guidelines. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 00:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The Center Line: Fall 2023

Volume 10, Issue 1 • Fall 2023 • About the Newsletter

Features

• A New Future for Road Articles Online

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi 1979 → on 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Why am I getting a message about The Centre Line?

Given I don't write about US roads, why am I receiving this message? Please remove me from your list. Thanks Kerry (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond it was a one-time mailing to listed members of the roads projects to announce the news within the issue. It is also literally the last issue of The Center line that will be published as the publication and much of the wiki project behind it is shutting down. Again, it's all detailed in the issue. Imzadi 1979 → 19:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

But I am not a member of this project as you can clearly see Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants so why spam people who are not project members? Kerry (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I too received the post, despite not being a member of any roads project. Presumably there was some error in the mailing process. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Washington Street (Massachusetts)

Hi there. I recall you seemed to know your stuff regarding highways and the like, so I was wondering if you had any input on whether Washington Street is notable enough for an article? It's part of both Massachusetts State Route 9 and State Route 16 in various parts of its course. At worst, I suppose I could merge the information regarding its Route 16 stretch into that article. It was PROD'd this morning is all. Seasider53 (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Attached KML/Schoenherr Road

Template:Attached KML/Schoenherr Road has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Napier Avenue transfer

If you check the end of the text in the St. Joseph Valley Parkway article, you can see the ref that I just added that resolves the discussion on the talk page from earlier this year. Mapsax (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Noticed an error in a Georgia state route

I noticed some errors on Georgia_State_Route_317, and was wondering if you can fix it.

1. Map error, does it actually end on I-85 interchange?

2. Map length reference, does it end on Georgia State Route 120? (near Georgia State Route 316) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgiaStateRoute702 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@GeorgiaStateRoute702: what are you asking me? If you're asking me two questions about the subject, I wouldn't know those answers without specific research. Georgia isn't my area of expertise. If you know the answers to those questions, then feel free to fix the article yourself. Imzadi 1979 → 03:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

BL I-96

Hey, I'm not sure if you wrote this section of the article, but could you go take a look at my post in the Talk:Business routes of Interstate 96? I thought you might know the history of this, and might have some ideas. I'm kind of in favor of adding street names to business route, US highways, and state highway descriptions in articles like this, at least where it's not clear exactly the route one may be talking about.--Criticalthinker (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

BL I-96

Not sure why this got archived right away, but reposting it looking for a response. The description of this particularly rerouting is confusing:

"In 1963, BL I-96 was rerouted onto the first portion of the I-496 freeway to be constructed southeast of the city. This rerouting would last until 1966 when it was transferred back to the original routing with the completion of the US 127 freeway between Lansing and Mason. BL I-96 was rerouted along M-43/Bus. M-78 to the I-496/M-78 freeway and back to I-96 at exit 106. Once the US 127 freeway was completed, BL I-96 was rerouted back along the former US 127 routing to I-96."

The second-to-last sentence seems to be out of sequence, and it confuses things, regardless. And the last sentence seems to simply repeat the second sentence, here, which further confuses things. Please whoever wrote this rewrite this to clarify things. Criticalthinker (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request for I-20 in SC

I can’t request there, but I will here. - I just want freeway names to be put for the tables of junctions of I-26, I-77, I-95, and I-20 bus. - Atlanta to be removed since I-20 travels there west. - Replace Savannah into Miami since that’s a very major city I-95 travels south than Savannah. - Mention of future (western extension/terminus of) I-126 in exit table, future turbine interchange for I-26, and future diverting diamond interchange for exit 63 and US 176 according to Carolina Crossroads website (https://www.scdotcarolinacrossroads.com/). - Add “To Mytle Beach via I-95 north” to notes for I-95 junction since that location is an addition, same for “Francis University” for US 76 junction. 23.150.248.194 (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

BL I-96 article question

"In 1963, BL I-96 was rerouted onto the first portion of the I-496 freeway to be constructed southeast of the city. This rerouting would last until 1966 when it was transferred back to the original routing with the completion of the US 127 freeway between Lansing and Mason. BL I-96 was rerouted along M-43/Bus. M-78 to the I-496/M-78 freeway and back to I-96 at exit 106. Once the US 127 freeway was completed, BL I-96 was rerouted back along the former US 127 routing to I-96."

The second-to-last sentence seems to be out of sequence, and it confuses things, regardless. And the last sentence seems to simply repeat the second sentence, here, which further confuses things. Please whoever wrote this rewrite this to clarify things. Is there some reason you keep archiving this prematurely? --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't bother. I rewrote it. I've asked for help on the Talk page, and got no feedback. If anyone has a problem with the wording, then they can come to the Talk page. Criticalthinker (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If the text can be improved, please improve it. You don't need my permission or input on that score. However, as much as we may hold Mr. Bessert in high esteem, we cannot at this time use his website as a source. Now, there may be a way to prove his status as a "highway historian" given how often he's been cited in the media over the years, but since most of USRD forked over to the AARoads Wiki, and since his site would be allowed under the AARW policies, there isn't going to be much traction to push for such a determination.

As for archiving, see above: " Threads older than seven days after the last reply will be archived. Thank you." Imzadi 1979 → 19:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

M-5 (Michigan highway)

Can you please figure out what I'm doing wrong trying to add exit numbers on M-5 (Michigan highway)? The exits in the Farmington portion are now numbered. I've tried like ten times to add the exit numbers and they just aren't working. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: this edit added the exit column and removed the note about unnumbered exits. Now |exit=# has to be added to the appropriate lines of the table to complete that process.

A best practice for mixed surface highway/freeway situations is to set up one blank exit that spans multiple rows for lines that aren't exits. I can do that for you after you add the missing numbers.

Just a note, most of the USRD project has left Wikipedia for the AARoads Wiki, so if you'd like to join us, please feel free to create an account and edit over there. The American and Canadian highway articles were all imported over the summer, and we've been developing much better mapping gadgets in collaboration with the OSM Americana project, among other improvements. Imzadi 1979 → 20:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Spur route imagery

Hey,(and sorry for Copyright Media), how can I make the images smaller in the section "United States" of Spur route article, or is it the default size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgiaStateRoute702 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

They are the default size. Please dont change that as editors may have set a different size in their preferences. Setting an image size overrides their preferences. Imzadi 1979 → 15:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, it's because some images are overlapping a section, but sorry for time :) GeorgiaStateRoute702 (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Also remember, not everyone reads the articles on screens of the same size as yours. Some are on phones, some are widescreens, and some are even printing articles on paper. Just because a photo overlaps for you does not mean it overlaps for your others. Imzadi 1979 → 16:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

My screen is 1366x768, so that's probably why I see it like that GeorgiaStateRoute702 (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey it’s me, but this is my main account. Chris 886 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Where’s My Reply?

I made a talk page about I-20 about 20 days ago, it’s in the achieve talk page right now, and you never replied, please reply, thank you. 23.150.248.194 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Chicago undos

Hi @Imzadi1979, I only added grid coordinates where they exist on signs. Your undo of my edit says they aren't there, which isn't the case. To clarify, if they are on the signs, they should be there, right? WMSR (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

HWY assesses set index articles as DAB-class

[5]Really? Is there a specific page for that? It isn't mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It has been a practice in the past, although that page hasn't been explicitly coded and therefore implicitly assessed as such except perhaps when the banners were looking for DAB/SIA templates on the pages. Imzadi 1979 → 05:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to past examples of assessing a list article as a disambiguation page? I think its probably better to just make it a disambiguation page, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It is a disambiguation page as far as we've been concerned. If I'm not mistaken, the undisambiguated generic terms such as "Highway #" or "Route #" were long ago redirected to/merged into the "List of highways numbered #", thus making them serve as a disambiguation page. The boundaries between DAB and SIA are so amorphous and blurry that for our purposes, they're just the same concept that some pedants have tried to draw an arbitrary boundary between, and thus, they're all DAB pages as far as we're concerned. Since the various highway projects have always had a slightly different take on assessment (using Future-Class, basing lower-level assessments on content present, etc.), and that take has been respected for over a decade, I don't see why it should be problematic to continue respecting that yet, unless the goal is to finish pushing the remainder of us editors off Wikipedia completely. Imzadi 1979 → 05:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That does not appear to reflect consensus, see WP:SIA. I'm happy to respect the consensus, it has to actually exist though. Or did these conversations take place off wiki? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we ever formally documented the practice because it just organically developed from project members keeping assessments up to date as best we can. Again, our project has always just kinda done its own thing in keeping assessments up to date, and since such pages have had {{roaddab}}, which later became {{roadindex}}, placed on the bottom of them, they've never been considered by many of us to be list articles. To us, list articles have always been stuff with big tables listing highways and giving basic data like lengths, termini and dates, while these have been DAB/SIA pages for navigation and disambiguation purposes. Imzadi 1979 → 06:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I understood that the first time, thats why I asked for examples of the practice. The problem with it as a SIA is that they have to meet a notability requirement which disambiguation pages don't, it doesn't meet that as there doesn't appear to be *any* coverage at all of the type as a type. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

All of those sorts of pages that existed long enough ago were tagged as DAB pages with {{roaddab}} (or whatever that template was named). At some point, someone retagged them with {{roadindex}}. Since the basic page purpose (disambiguating between highways with the same base number that could all be called "Highway 220" or "Route 220" or "Road 220" etc.) never changed, but someone else enforced this "set index" concept by changing the template, we just kinda moved on with assessing SIAs as DAB-Class, since that's what they were still doing. Imzadi 1979 → 06:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thats an interesting solution, but seems like a lazy workaround to actually making them disambiguation pages which in a small way breaks wikipedia... This is effectively mislabeling them after all. Would you object to me making that an actual disambiguation page at either "Highway 220" or "Route 220"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If you mean to move the existing page to a different title, I wonder what the point would be. As I said, the current page already serves that navigation function.

Can I please make a request? Can you limit your comments to a single edit? I don't want to sound impertinent, but getting two emails for what is essentially a single reply to my talk page, with the accompanying alert for each new message on my computer, is well, frankly getting annoying. If you find that you cannot confine your comments to a single edit, perhaps this discussion will have run its course. Imzadi 1979 → 06:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

But the current page can't continue to exist forever because it isn't notable... In order for the page to continue to exist it must be made an actual disambiguation page which requires moving it in this case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

So the difference is the title of the page? Not the content? That seems utterly pointless and frankly disruptive. We're talking about thousands of pages like this moving, probably to titles they once had nearly 20 years ago. The current titling is rather neutral regarding dialectical differences in the English language, especially when "Highway" and "Route" as a proper name component are just two of an assortment of options. This sounds like a big disruption for no actual benefit other than to satisfy some notion of "notability" that doesn't apply to a navigation page. Imzadi 1979 → 07:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The difference is the type of page. What is disruptive is having a disambiguation page masquerading as a list. Notability does in fact apply to some navigation pages, see WP:SIA "The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

We have articles on many highways that have the number 220. Readers who are unaware of which specific 220 they want are given a listing/index/whatever to find their desired topic. Clearly we should have some page to aid in that navigation, unless it is your goal to remove all content from Wikipedia related to highways with that number. Wash, rinse, and repeat for any other number from 1 to 9999 (or wherever the set of pages ends). Imzadi 1979 → 07:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes... We need a disambiguation page... We do not currently have one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks like a DAB page to me. I mean, the only thing that it has that other DAB pages don't have are the headings, but I've seen them on other DAB pages to subdivide by topic. The first line of the page says " Route 220 or Highway 220 may refer to:", and that's followed by a list of highways with the number 220. It doesn't contain additional information about each entry (like an SIA page) other than noting which are former highways.

Unless you mean the presence of the marker graphics. Since highways, at least in the US and Canada, are so frequently associated with their reassurance markers, it would do our readers a disservice to remove those. In many cases, a reader may not know that the the formal name of their desired topic is "New Mexico State Road 220", but they may recall that the sign had that red design in the circle around the number 220.

So if this discussion boils down to moving the page means that stupid notability notice can come off a navigational/disambiguational page, then Wikipedia has jumped the shark. If that's the point, please don't bother to reply and let this pointless conversation end right here. Imzadi 1979 → 07:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks like a DAB page, but its not a DAB page... It is in fact a list page. Check again if you don't believe me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That is the most pedantic nonsense I've read on Wikipedia, a website known for pedantry among its editor corps.

I'm just through with this. Maybe it isn't this page specifically, and maybe after 18 years of editing my brain is confusing details after over 146,800 edits, but I recall that some of these pages in the early days had DAB templates and different names. Forces outside the HWY project said they had to be retagged as SIA pages, but nothing substantial in the content changed on the pages. I seem to recall some of them having different titles at some point, but they were moved to the current scheme for reasons forgotten to me that made sense to others. Or maybe they were just plain moved because "List of highways numbered #" is a neutral title amongst several variations of English, least of which is the regional types in the United States where we have Highway 220, Route 220, Road 220, or other countries where we could have Freeway 220 or translations of that like ‘’Autoroute 220’’, etc.  Now we have DAB pages that aren't DAB pages because of reasons you won't clearly articulate, but I’m just supposed to trust you that it isn’t a DAB page even though it looks like one, so we have to tag it for notability, which is your preferred precursor to a future deletion nomination.

It is stuff like this that drives well meaning editors crazy, or off the website. Shifting goalposts on the most mundane of topics, in this case what to call the concept of a page that allows readers to navigate between and find a specific desired highway when they know the number and maybe the the reassurance marker design, or how the page title magically changes the type of a page.

So again, I’m done. Imzadi 1979 → 07:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry I though I had clearly articulated it... Its marked as a list and not a DAB. It can't be both, if its a list it isn't a DAB. Its in the category "Lists of roads sharing the same title" not "Category:Road disambiguation pages" and unlike every single DAB on wikipedia it lacks Template:Disambiguation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Untitled comments

Why did you revert my edit on Illinois Route 394? Not every junction is an exit. Can you please explain? Same with my edit on Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada–Wendover, Utah). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@NintendoTTTEfan2005: your edit on BL I-80 removed one of the states from the infobox system section. Reverting the edit restored the second state to the infobox, which is why I stated in my edit summary: "un-break infobox". When you find things like this, please preview your edit and scrutinize the templates you are altering, like the infobox, to make sure you are not breaking things. Sometimes there are workarounds to make things display correctly.

Finally, please follow proper talk page protocols, like using headings for new topics and remember to sign your comments on talk pages. Thank you. Imzadi 1979 → 05:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@NintendoTTTEfan2005: regarding this edit, there were two issues. One, MOS:HEAD says that headings need to be in sentence case. Thus, assuming ad arguendo that your edit was needed/correct, it should have been "Junction list". However, our project standards do not require us to be that literal. U.S. Route 131, a Featured Article on a highway with both freeway and non-freeway sections, uses "Exit list" as the heading. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards#Major intersections or Exit list]] for more information, but in short, just changing something to change it isn't always the best course of action. Imzadi 1979 → 05:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Christmas greetings

Maria Gloriosa

May the bells of Christmas ring for freedom!

May peace be upon us.

And have a happy and prosperous New Year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Numbered highways in the United States

For the "U.S. Highways" section: Why do keep having the thing of the part "U.S. Route 21" of the sentence "This has led to the decommissioning and truncation of U.S. Highways that were formerly vital long-haul routes, such as U.S. Route 21 and U.S. Route 66"? Please, just try to have it be "U.S. Route 99" part of a sentence so would be "This has led to the decommissioning and truncation of U.S. Highways that were formerly vital long-haul routes, such as U.S. Route 99 and U.S. Route 66". It would make more sense; thank you! 209.53.191.155 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Come on, 209, I thought my explanation that one being truncated and the other being decommissioned was good enough. With 66 and 99, this makes a worse example, because neither fit the "truncated" half of the phrase. If you really want the normie highway that is US 66 in the article, at least replace 99 with it, not 21. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)