User talk:Imzadi1979/Archive 5

Active discussions
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 9

Junction lists in history section

After seeing your recent edit to Louisiana Highway 138, I realized I must be unclear on this point and was wondering if you could clarify for me when and when not to include them. When Louisiana renumbered its entire highway system in 1955, several old routes (especially the shorter ones) were duplicated by or contained entirely within a new route and probably should not require a dedicated article. The junction lists for these routes often duplicate the locations of the new route but with all different highway numbers. Should these never be included? What if more recent alignment changes have made the new route significantly different than the old route? And finally, if junction lists should not be included for any of these scenarios, what would be a scenario that would? Thanks. Britinvasion64 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Typically, unless the article is going to devote an entire section specifically to the former designation, as a little miniature article, there is no need to have any junction lists in the overall article other than the one for the subject of the article. Putting junction list tables on the middle of the history of LA 138, when the list isn't for LA 138 itself looks very disorganized. U.S. Route 16 in Michigan covers the back history for its immediate predecessor, M-16, but there is no junction list for the former designation, and there doesn't need to be one either..Imzadi 1979  21:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll have to go back and re-tool a few articles. Do you have a Michigan example where a former route has an entire section in the current route's article, so I know when it's proper to do so? Britinvasion64 (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Not really. Any former designations subsumed into a more recent one would have the small infobox listed in the history section, but they wouldn't devote an entire section of the article to that former designation in that way. The only time I've done a full section is like on Interstate 196 where the business routes have dedicated sections at the end. The former I-196 has its infobox in a subsection of the history, but no exit list. Imzadi 1979  22:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for your help. Britinvasion64 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


hi from another GR wikipedian...I'm setting up a meetup on Sept 7 at the Fuller Ave (and Michigan St., in the same building as the Subway) BIGBY COFFEE (365 Fuller Ave NE Ste B Grand Rapids, MI 49503, Grand Rapids, MI)(by the Fuller exit off of 96)if you are at all interested. Love to see you there! Bdcousineau (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Fuck copyediting

Thank you for your helpful copyedits to Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, much appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

my edits

I understand my changes might not fit your current editing policy, but these changes make navigating the pages with a script for data extraction much easier, I feel that if you allow me to add links to all of the citys that dont have one, it will help you as well, as it would make it easier for others to benefit from your hard and outstanding work with the US roads project.

Royal Oak is linked on the line above it. There's no need to re-link it two lines in a row. Imzadi 1979  02:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

However as I said, with the additional link, navigating through the html of the page with a program becomes much easier. I am trying to create a database of roads, their junctions and the cities that they are near so I can have an easy to query version of the information you have added to the major junctions section. I think your work is amazing and I want to help by making this database. I know several clients that would greatly appreciate such a thing. So if adding the second link does not cause too much of an issue on your end, I would be immensely grateful as without every city being linked my program will have so many errors I will have to do much of it by hand, turning a days work into a much longer process. So please, will you permit me to make these edits. If not, I would like to know how adding this links inconveniences you, so that I can see if I can find some alternative solution to my problem. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry, but every city is already linked, and that's why they're not supposed to be linked again. Per WP:OVERLINK, a link should really only appear once in an article unless the two links are a long way away from each other in the article. Having two links to the same page one line away from each other in the same template is extremely redundant. TCN7JM 02:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, Interstate 696 is one of 18 Featured Articles (FA) for the Michigan task force of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. FAs have the little bronze star in the upper right-hand corner, and they've been audited against a fairly demanding set of criteria. Interstate 75 in Michigan was just promoted the other morning, and its promotion was held up for 10 days over questions related to repetitive linking, even paragraphs apart, in the same section of the article. Imzadi 1979  02:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the feedback, I will try to find a way to adapt to that. A few other things, would you link to receive a copy of my database when it is finished, as it would be impossible to make without your contributions. In addition, since you a probably familiar to the whole wikiproject, which sections should I look out for as I compile my data (i.e. the Business interstate section has a lot of red links, or does any section not have a junctions list). Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What is this database all about? Imzadi 1979  02:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The goal is to make it easy for the user to navigate the US road system and cities that are close to it with simple searches. For example a person could input two locations, and the database would find the roads between them and all the cities you would pass along the way. It may sound a bit like google maps, but this will all be offline, and from a data analyzers perspective much more easy to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi, Imzadi. I wanted to let you know that I've submitted C-SPAN to WP:FAC. If you were interested in helping with this stage of the process too I would really appreciate it. If you'd like to help you'll find C-SPAN on the FAC page here. If not, I completely understand. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Arlington approaches

I have two questions about the script-made changes to the article Construction of the Arlington County, Virginia, approaches to Arlington Memorial Bridge. First, WP:CITE#Newspaper articles says page numbers are optional for newspaper article citations. So why run a script that added several thousand characters asking for page numbers? The script also added ISSN numbers for newspapers, which is not required under WP:CITE. Second, the script also changed all the citation formatting to a template format. That doesn't seem appropriate under with WP:CITEVAR. Perhaps there is a good answer to both questions. Perhaps the script ran automatically? Perhaps it does things it shouldn't (scripts sometimes do). - Tim1965 (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't the script. The script only updated the dates to force them into a consistent format. The rest was me. As for why, it's simple. I write articles with the goal that everything here could be a Featured Article (or Featured List) someday. One of the most-requested items on citations in the FACs I've nominated is full citation information. Whenever possible, we should provide full citation information, which includes the appropriate page numbers. The templates have many advantages, one of which is metadata (which isn't visible) that enables many benefits for automated search tools and scripts. Plus, they force the citations to stay consistently formatted so we don't have to double check if the commas or periods are all done right each time. Imzadi 1979  02:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of Featured Articles that don't use citation templates; for example, see Duino Elegies from August 2. And while citation templates may have value, there are downsides to them as well. I still don't see, however, that this fits with either of the following: "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged: an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus" - WP:CITE. "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Optional styles. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to revert if you wish. That's all. Imzadi 1979  18:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest SJVP edit

I just checked Wikipedia:Citation overkill, and while it says "If a page has extra citations that are either mirror pages or just parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to its reliability while acting as a detriment to its readability" it also says "Two or three [footnotes] may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact". I chose to add the Kalamazoo source because the H-P website is more restrictive with its access (it's rare that a reader would have read two H-P articles prior but there is no restriction at all on the Kzo site). I kept the H-P as a source because it has extensive comment specifically about the 31 project, whereas Kzo's just mentions it in passing. If you insist on paring it to one article, please make that article the H-P's. Mapsax (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In general, there's really only three cases where pairing footnotes together is not overkill to me. The first is pairing the paper DOT map with an online map set to display satellite imagery for a highway's route description. The second is when pairing two map citations together to cite the before and after conditions related to a change in routing, alignment, numbering, etc. The third is when citing mileage information for the individual states on an interstate highway. As for preventing linkrot, I prefer either or both of the following techniques: a) pre-emptively archiving the news article through , or b) citing the paper numbers from the print edition of the newspaper so that even if the link goes dead, the article can be verified using copies of the articles on microfilm. Both techniques can be combined; see County Road 595 for examples of pre-emptively archived articles from The Mining Journal that also reference the appropriate information to the print edition of the paper. Imzadi 1979  00:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks & question

Thank you for making corrections to Stone Mountain Freeway and Veterans Parkway (Savannah, Georgia). I didn't realize that those should have been made.
My question is this: I saw that the User:Rschen7754/Coordination page was modified. Just in case I am having a huge brain fart, are there any of the tasks on there that I already do? If so, should I add myself? Thank you again for your help. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and add yourself, I knew that I was probably missing some project-wide tasks. --Rschen7754 22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
To what section(s)? That is what I wanted to know. Some of them aren't worded in a way that I can easily understand. Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to ask on IRC if you need clarification about any particular one. --Rschen7754 23:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WP Australian Roads in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Australian Roads for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Millennium 3D Chess citation style

Hi Imzadi, I'm kinda weak on citation formats so know I can learn something here w/ your help. I originally had the citation format you changed to here, the reason I had changed it to the {{sfnp}} format was because I was imitating the citation style in article British Motor Syndicate after paying note to Malleus's edit here especially his edit sum. So as you can see I was trying to be consistent w/ that example wanting to do the right thing for Millennium article (and some others I've started) since Malleus is highly respected editor/writer of course. (Did I do wrong?) Thanks as this is a bit confusing for me. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that setup as it existed before, however there was only two footnotes that directly referenced two citations. In that case, it's just simpler to merge the citation into the footnote.
I only use shortened footnotes when I'm repeatedly citing the same books over and over, but to different page numbers. For example, in Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, 19 or so books and reports are used, several of which were cited repeatedly but to differing page numbers. In that case, the shortened footnotes clear up a lot of clutter in the footnotes section by moving all of the repeated information into the works cited section. When I split things up that way, I will also then use shortened footnotes on all books/reports/dead-tree sources so that some aren't shortened and some are. That way the article is consistent that if it's a source of a certain type, it's shortened.
However, I don't switch to shortened footnotes until sources get multiple cites each. Look at M-1 (Michigan highway) where the The Detroit Almanac has two separate footnotes by page number out of 87 total footnotes. In that case, it isn't too much clutter to repeat a footnote a second time for the the page numbers even though its to the same source. In a second case in that article, I merged the three potentially separate footnotes to Woodward Avenue: Cruising the Legendary Strip together by listing the page numbers consulted together. Otherwise, each book in that article has a single footnote in the list. I hope that helps. Imzadi 1979  08:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Virginia State Route 657 (Fairfax County) format changes, etc.

Thanks for the table fixes in the above named article.

As for the changes to the date format: the Manual of Style specifically says that YYYY-MM-DD is acceptable in references, so I do not understand why the date format in the references was changed. If the WP top brass really want the month names spelled out even in references, the MOS should not allow the other formats at all. And if we are to keep the full month names, then I request that we use DD Month YYYY because that is a far more widely accepted format worldwide (it's used by most of the professional journals I read, anyway).

Lastly, the Virginia Highways Project page was tagged as an unreliable source. Is there a reason for this? It's used in almost every Virginia road article we have, and contains direct references to Commonwealth Transportation Board meeting minutes as well as scans of actual historic maps. In the specific instance, the site's article for VA 28 includes a piece of the 1963 Virginia Dept. of Transportation Official State Highway Map that shows VA 28 extended up the current SR 657 to US 50. This hardly strikes me as hallmarks of an unreliable source.

-DM1693 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DM1693 (talkcontribs) 03:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

American-connected articles should use American-style dates per the MOS, unless they're on shipping or the military. As for the source, it's a self-published source, so it's not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. You can re-cite the necessary details to the specific government documents and maps, which are reliable sources per our definitions. Imzadi 1979  04:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Forest Highway

Re your comments here — Look2See1 has a long history of disruptive formatting changes here and at Commons, and he habitually accuses people of vandalism when he's reverted. You would do well to warn him; he'll ignore my warnings, because he sees me as a habitual vandal for my cleanup of formatting changes such as this one. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Some questions regarding your edits on FL SR 878

Hey mate, I've just got a few questions regarding your edits you made on Florida State Road 878 as I don't understand the reasoning behind some of them, as well as just some other things I feel you could answer to help me be a better (WP:USRD) editor:

  • I don't understand why you removed the incomplete type for the western terminus interchange. Although all four directions of access are permitted between Kendall Avenue and SR 878, there's no direct access between SR 878 and SR 874 north of it in both directions. While it's possible for southbound SR 874 and westbound SR 878 motorists to take the Kendall Avenue ramp and come back on the opposite side to then go east along SR 878 or north along SR 874, a check of the currently-available Google Maps streetview doesn't show any signs advertising this manoeuvre. I consider an indirect move, especially an unadvertised one such as the one above to disqualify an interchange from being complete. Is there consensus against this view?
  • I'm under the opinion that the RJL should be a tabular summary of the information in the article as to the road's present state, so I'm having difficulty understanding why you removed the toll charges from the RJL. Is this because the current charges are described in the prose of the article, despite having two different rates due to having a transponder or not, or because they shouldn't be listed there, or any other reason why?
  • I also don't understand why you changed the type of the toll collection points from ETC to just toll, when there is no cash collection along SR 878 as all tolls are electronic (what I read the ETC type to mean in its usage). What is your reason behind doing this?
  • I see now that I have made an error with when I've put portals into an article, and thus I will go back through my list of articles I've done so far and correct that. In so doing, is {{Portal}} used when there are already links in the See also section, or should they just be listed with the other related articles; and if so, how should they be presented (i.e. above, below, integrated)?
  • I noticed that you put in "|author=District 6" into the SLD references. May I ask your reasoning behind doing so?
  • I also see that you've columnised the reference list. What would you consider a good number of references to be before doing that in other articles?

I look forward to hearing from you soon, and thanks in advance for answering my questions. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


  • Based on the "Eastbound entrance and westbound exit" note, for a terminus that would still be complete access. (You can't go westbound on a freeway that has no westbound.) If there are additional restrictions that make the interchange incomplete, they need to specified in the notes. Based on what was there, it wasn't "incomplete".
  • We typically skip over listing prices in junction lists. Wikipedia isn't a price guide, and on other articles involving toll roads, average rates are usually given in the prose. (You'll find examples both ways, but remember there are 10K articles only a dozen or so of us volunteering. Not ever article will get stuff right.)
  • That would be an error on both parts then. ETC indications are to be used when they are the exception to the rule. For example, an ETC-only exit on a toll road that otherwise has cash acceptance. Ditto the toll indicator: a toll bridge on an otherwise free highway. If the whole highway is ETC-only, pull the color completely.
  • If I have valid "see also" links, I use the box. If there are no valid links, then I use in the inline variant. Either way, there will be a bulleted list in the section.
  • Whenever possible, I list an author for a source, even if its just a specific office of a government agency. Those SLDs were prepared by the District 6 office, so absent a specific person, that's a good enough entry to list as the author.
  • A good rule of thumb I've used is 10, but others use 15.

Imzadi 1979  01:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much for your help. I still have one question regarding the ETC/toll, though, in that you say to "pull the colour completely" if the whole highway is ETC-only, which SR 878 is. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Could you please clarify what you mean for me? Thanks. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I know but it is primarily a North South road. Think about US 4 the New York section is signed North - South but the rest is East - West. so it is the same difference.

I was just pointing that out Just like US 9 is East - West signed in Delaware it is a North South Highway, Same applies for US 4 in New York and several other highways of that nature. That is why I have been reverting the direction on the main page, I will leave it East - West on the Deleware page however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miked1992 (talkcontribs) 20:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

We've been following the signage though on the national pages. Imzadi 1979  20:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Help test better mass message delivery

Hi. You're being contacted as you've previously used global message delivery (or its English Wikipedia counterpart). It doesn't feel so great to be spammed, does it? ;-)

For the past few months, Legoktm has built a replacement to the current message delivery system called MassMessage. MassMessage uses a proper user interface form (no more editing a /Spam subpage), works faster (it can complete a large delivery in minutes), and no longer requires being on an access list (any local administrator can use it). In addition, many tiny annoyances with the old system have been addressed. It's a real improvement! :-)

You can test out MassMessage here: testwiki:Special:MassMessage. The biggest difference you'll likely notice is that any input list must use a new {{#target:}} parser function. For example, {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales}} or {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales|}}. For detailed instructions, check out mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage.

If you find any bugs, have suggestions for additional features, or have any other feedback, drop a note at m:Talk:MassMessage. Thanks for spamming! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Brockway Mountain Drive

This is a note to let the main editors of Brockway Mountain Drive know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 14, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 14, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Brockway Mountain Drive is a 8.883-mile (14.296 km) scenic highway just west of Copper Harbor in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in the United States. Drivers can access the road from state highway M-26 on either end near Eagle Harbor to the west or Copper Harbor to the east in the Keweenaw Peninsula. The drive runs along the ridge of Brockway Mountain on the Keweenaw Fault and climbs to 1,320 feet (402 m) above sea level, 720 feet (220 m) above the surface of Lake Superior. Several viewpoints along the route allow for panoramas of Lake Superior (pictured from the road), Copper Harbor, and undeveloped woodland. On a clear day, Isle Royale (approximately 50 miles (80 km) away) can be seen. Brockway Mountain was named for David D. Brockway, one of the pioneer residents of the area. The road was constructed by the county road commission with funding through Depression-era work programs in 1933. It was briefly used as a connection for the parallel state highway after it opened. Since it opened, it has been recognized nationally and locally in several media outlets for its picturesque qualities, usually in profiles of Keweenaw County, the Upper Peninsula or other scenic drives. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Louisiana Highways Barnstar

  Louisiana Highways Barnstar
For helping work out the Louisiana Highway pages, I present this to you. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

My Extensive Coverage of LA 126

I just wanted to let you know that I have recently expanded the Louisiana Highway 126 page, quadrupling its size and adding loads of information about each of the stops it makes throughout the five parishes it serves. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's a good start, but a 98-mile highway's route description should be at least twice that long. That's not even mentioning the history section or junction list. –Fredddie 23:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

1924 Rose Bowl, again

Hello Imzadi1979,

I have yet again nominated my article, 1924 Rose Bowl, at FAC (nom page here). Because you reviewed the article previously, I was wondering if you would be willing to look at it again. I addressed all of your concerns at your previous review, and there have been no changes to the article. Much appreciated, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wisconsin Highway 35

Hi-Wisconsin Highway 35 between Ferryville and Prairie du Chien was named in honor of former Wisconsin Governor Patrick Lucey. I added the information to the history section of the article with citation. The citation is from the La Crosse Tribune. The problem-the Tribune wants you to pay them for read the paper. I did not use the Trib website for the citation; I wrote down where it came from. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. If you used the print edition of the paper, that's pretty much what you'd do. I will note that I'm changing the citation to use a template and fixing the quotation marks so that the title of the newspaper is put in italics and not boldface though. Imzadi 1979  18:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Grading Scheme

Question: Why undo my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Player072 (talkcontribs) 14:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Why remove the version and date of the example? Articles change over time, so the examples need to point back to specific version of each specified article. Imzadi 1979  00:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I-35 in Kansas

I live in Kansas. The exit in question (Exit 205) just opened. In addition, I don't rely on Google Maps because of they take so long to update their maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOJayhawk99 (talkcontribs) 03:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If you'd look, you'd see that I reversed myself and fixed your addition. You however have now unfixed formatting and cause issues in that article. I have reverted your last edit that introduced issues with the exit list. If the interchange has opened, please do a handful of steps. 1. Remove the |type=unbuilt for that row. 2. Amend the notes for that row to indicate it opened, and supply a source for those notes. Imzadi 1979  03:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Brockway Mountain Drive

Hey, I came onto Wikipedia to look up something and noticed that Brockway Mountain Drive was the featured article then saw you put it up for nomination, congrats :) Strato|sphere 16:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! You are still missed around here. Imzadi 1979  16:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Another one? Well done

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of U.S. Route 23 in Michigan to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. BencherliteTalk 10:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I-95 Auxiliary routes

Regarding your deletion of the list of auxiliary routes of Interstate 95; First let me point out that I agree with your comment. Second, I though a wikified chart version of the list would have been a good idea before you deleted the whole thing. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@DanTD: like the navbox that was there? Imzadi 1979  05:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking more of converting the list into an actual chart, but I can go with either one. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what the point would be when the navbox has all of them organized well enough. Remember too that Interstate 95 is supposed to act as a higher-level summary of all of the state-level articles and really only connect to all of the related 3dIs. Now on something like Interstate 75 in Michigan, which links to the four 3dIs in Michigan and the 9 current or former business loops/spurs, that summarizes the key points about the 13 other highways in a pair of paragraphs. Imzadi 1979  06:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014

Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ohio State Route 7

The history section was copied from the source. You know, copied. As in copyright infringement. --NE2 02:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that you actually did mark that. If you insist on the silly procedure, go for it. --NE2 02:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
@NE2: see my followup edits which tagged the article so that the history can be cleaned appropriately, which is something an admin needs to do per policy. Just removing it doesn't deal with all of the issue since that content is in the old revisions. Imzadi 1979  02:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Suspected or complicated infringement: "Remove the infringing text or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can." --NE2 02:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
And then an admin still needs to delete all of the old revisions... Imzadi 1979  02:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
And then no: "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it". In this case, removing the revisions would get rid of a lot of good edits, so it's not only unnecessary but actively harmful. --NE2 02:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The old revisions should still be purged to prevent someone from restoring them. Good edits won't be removed in the process, so let the pros who deal with this stuff deal with this. Imzadi 1979  02:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
As an example, this edit would be lost. All that would remain would be the end result. --NE2 13:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for U.S. Route 27 in Michigan

Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Beginning of MassMessage, end of EdwardsBot

Hi. You're being contacted as you're listed as an EdwardsBot user.

MassMessage has been deployed to all Wikimedia wikis. For help using the new tool, please check out its help page or drop a note on Meta-Wiki.

With over 400,000 edits to Wikimedia wikis, EdwardsBot has served us well; however EdwardsBot will no longer perform local or global message delivery after December 31, 2013.

A huge thanks to Legoktm, Reedy, Aaron Schulz and everyone else who helped to get MassMessage deployed. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Tennessee State Route 32

Hi, I noticed you recently tagged a page i created and the route description section was tagged for copy editing so you know came up with all that my self with all the correct information and no copying anything and i forgot that highways go south-north sorry on that, i will fix it when i get the chance. And Thanks for fixing mistakes. ACase0000 (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

@ACase0000: copy editing does not mean the content may be wrong or copied from another source. Instead, your writing needs to be improved. Your most recent writing that I've read uses single run-on sentences. Your comments here on my talk page are an example of that. What should be three or four sentences in your posting is instead only two. In the SR 32 article, the entire RD section is only large sentence that should be broken into multiple separate sentences. When that is done, it might even need to be broken into separate paragraphs. That's what needs to be fixed in the article, and what I mean by copy editing. Imzadi 1979  16:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
You also should look at the comments I left on Talk:Tennessee State Route 394, because they explain some errors in formatting you've been making on other articles. Imzadi 1979  16:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh I did not Realize that it had to be that way, I am Sorry and I will raed your comments on SR-394's talk page.. ACase0000 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I read your Comments and i do find them useful. Thanks. ACase0000 (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


Greetings, Imzadi1979! First: You recently edited several Israeli road articles, adding them to the "Asian Highways Task Force". In one case, Jerusalem Road 16, you downgraded it from "B-class" to "not yet received a rating (future)". I gave it the "B-class" rating after previous conversations with you (and User:Floydian) and my understanding of Wikipedia assessment criteria in general and Project Highways assessment criteria in particular. Did I overlook something when making the assessment or must a Project Highways administrator make the assessment? Second: Would a high-speed, fully interchanged road which is (ecologically) controversial and which serves as a major entrance to a nation's capital city be assessed as "High-importance"? Please help me improve the article. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In this particular case, the highway has not been constructed, so it received a "Future" rating, which takes precedence over the normal criteria. --Rschen7754 10:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Uhh, what difference does that make? Where in the assessment criteria does it say that assessment refers to the subject matter (whether past, present of future)? Assessment criteria refers to the quality of Wikipedia articles, in this case about a road that is fully planned, financed and in the beginning stages of construction. --@Efrat (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
(tps) Future-class is a non-standard grade used by some WikiProjects. It hasn't been set up for WikiProject Highways, so Category:Future-Class Highways articles doesn't exist, and the {{WikiProject Highways}} banner treats |class=future as unassessed. - Evad37 [talk] 11:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to get Future-Class set up for the various banners so it will work, so that unconstructed/under-construction roads can have their articles assessed accordingly. This way those article subjects can be tracked, and until roads are initially completed, there are just enough details in doubt that make assessing them fully somewhat questionable. Imzadi 1979  17:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, Imzadi1979, now that that detour has been straightened out (lol, pun intended), please respond to my original first and second questions. Even if the decision is to leave the "future tag", I would appreciate your input. Does the article rise to "B-class" quality based on the criteria? Could it be considered "High-importance" based on the particulars of the road? Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Importance is very subjective, and the criteria I look at are that most highways are mid-level. It might be high-level for Israel, but it's mid-level on a more global or continental basis, for instance. Top-level would be articles like highway and that sort, high-level would be the articles on whole systems or lists of highways. That doesn't mean an individual highway might not merit an exception. As for B-Class, once the highway is open to traffic, are the sections fairly complete? Is there one functioning as a route description? a history? a junction list? If any of those sections are significantly deficient in quality, we discount them and assess at start-class. If they're only somewhat deficient, we could use C-Class. Imzadi 1979  19:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not a big fan of the the "future" tag. In my opinion, assessment should not be made based on the the subject matter, but rather on the quality and structure of the article itself. Leaving that aside, it seems that stub-start-C-B-A is somewhat subjective. As you have seen, I tend to be more liberal in my assessments. You are the reins keeping this horse and buggy from running out of control. Thanks for your expertise. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe in other projects, but we have WP:HWY/ACR to assign A-Class, and to be nominated there, an article must be a GA already. ACR is based on a bit more liberal application of the FA criteria, so that helps to remove a lot of the subjectivity. As for the other assessments below GA, HWY is starting to follow the USRD model that takes a lot of the subjectivity out of it. One of the Big 3 sections? Stub. 2 of them? Start. All three? C, unless the quality is there, then B. Unopened roads tend to have incomplete information, like they lack their mileposts, final toll charges, etc, before the road opens. They can't be complete enough for B-Class, in my opinion, until the days before completion. That's why we use the Future-Class. Imzadi 1979  05:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind, but as I said, I will probably continue to over-assess and you will continue to downgrade. Undoubtedly, your experience will permit you the final word. Not a bad arrangement, I think. lol. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi can you comment on this nomination. Vensatry (Ping me) 03:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not interested. I have a handful of nominations I plan to review, but next week is exams and graduation for me, so my time is limited. Imzadi 1979  03:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Archiving George Washington FAC

Hello, I'm AmericanLemming, and I noticed that you recently archived the George Washington FAC. I agree with archiving it, but I thought that was a job for the FAC coordinators. Is it usual for regular editors to archive premature nominations? AmericanLemming (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can process a a request by the nominator to withdraw a nomination, but only the coordinators can process promotions or archive nominations with substantial comments about the article. In this case, the only comments were related to the nomination itself. Imzadi 1979  07:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, now I know. Thanks for the prompt reply! AmericanLemming (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

London Buses route 414

Would you be good enough to explain to me how you came to the conclusion that this was a non-notable bus route?--Launchballer 11:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

@Launchballer: where are is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as prescribed by WP:GNG? Otherwise, these types of articles are typically not kept at WP:AFD as indicated by WP:BUSOUTCOMES; rather, bus routes are merged into the appropriate list.
  • Significant coverage means multiple news reports, books, magazine articles, etc. about the bus route, not passing mentions about others.
  • Reliable sources means ones with a reputation for accuracy and editorial oversight. The website is self-published, and fails the reliability test under WP:SPS.
  • Independent of the subject means the source can't be from the bus route operator. The TfL sources don't fit.
The article does not demonstrate notability, it doesn't say there is something special about the route, so were I to AfD this article, it would be deleted in all probability. Additionally, there is the concern that bus routes are a more ephemeral form of transportation compared to roads, rail or busways. The route operator can add or subtract stops or realign the route easily and without much notice by the press. Compare that to a highway agency adding a new interchange along a freeway, like MDOT did with Interstate 96 this year; that project took over a year to complete and made the news. Bus routes are easily out of date because of changes unannounced in the press. Imzadi 1979  21:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ray Nitschke Memorial Bridge

Hi-some IP/anon editor redirected an article about the Ray Nitschke Memorial Bridge to the article Ray Nitschke the Green Bay Packer football player. I thought articles about most bridges were considered notable. Would you please take a look? Many thanks-RFD (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

@RFD: I agree that named bridges like that one are usually going to be notable enough to warrant full articles. I'm going to restore the article from the redirect, but I suggest someone expand out the article. The details in the infobox were lost in the merger, but a section in the article should be created explaining and expanding on those items, like the length, designer, etc. That level of detail will be inappropriate for the Nitschke article itself, but some mention there is appropriate. Imzadi 1979  21:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Monticello Crossroads Scenic Byway

I saw that you edited the Monticello Crossroads Scenic Byway page. I added a bunch of stuff to the page. Do you know where a route for it is at? If so, the route description and major intersections could be filled in. Also, what about the history? Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue. I found that article on User:AlexNewArtBot/USRoadsSearchResult‎ as part of my daily check of that list for items that need to be tagged. Imzadi 1979  01:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, so did I. I usually check that page from my watchlist. I found some more information, but I don't know how to exactly input it. The byway utilizes SR 11 and SR 83 from the southern city limits of Monticello until they leave Jasper County. How could that accurately be mentioned in the article? Thanks for your help. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for U.S. Route 31 in Michigan

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 17:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Imzadi1979. You have new messages at Talk:Diverging diamond interchange.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Apologies for the late response over there; had to deal with final exams. I really appreciate your input and would be glad to further the discussion. 203 21:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Map scales


So since we were talking about map scales last night, shouldn't {{Google maps}}, {{Bing maps}} and {{Yahoo maps}} have |scale=Variable scale included in their hard coding? --AdmrBoltz 16:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. All of the the various citation guides I ran into over the semester to cite maps in MLA or Chicago style just omitted any mention of a map's scale for Google Maps, et al. They only indicated a scale, or "Scale not given" for paper maps or scanned maps online. Imzadi 1979  18:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Undoing edits

Why are you undoing the start class assessments like M10 highway (Russia) and Trans-Siberian Highway and others. Assessments should be the same and these are clearly not stubs. Please discuss, I feel quite different than you on this matter obviously. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

To be a Start-Class article for the Highways project, they need to have two of the "Big Three": route description, history, junction list. If they don't have at least two of them, they're Stub-Class. Please remember that no project is beholden to any other project for its assessments, and Stub-Class ≠ Stub. Imzadi 1979  05:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Stub class by definition is a stub. Will you stop mass reverting ones like Drogowa Trasa Średnicowa, D106 road (Croatia), Arna Tunnel, Highway 65 (Israel), North Luzon West Expressway and discuss this? Some of these are clearly not stubs by most definitions and should be rated down to the other projects if so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that is not the case. --Rschen7754 05:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
We've discussed the matter some. I had already finished re-assessing in the area and I didn't realize this was also different because the assessments didn't make any mention. And I am skipping it from now on. It's just troubling when I see those notifications all of a sudden and its easier to just pull the list and re-do them all down to match. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
"A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." (WP:Stub) vs. "Stub-Class: The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category." (WP:1.0/A). USRD and HWY use the "a rough collection of information" basis and apply a standard based on content and organization related to the "Big Three" sections a good road article needs (a description of the route, the history of the road, the junction list). Since the two definitions are distinct, that's allowable. Imzadi 1979  06:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

C-SPAN update

Hi there, just figured I'd let you know that the C-SPAN FAC closed this morning due to inactivity. Alas, travel and the holidays have kept me from completing my review of the references—let alone figuring out how to post them. I might still go ahead and ask Jimbo for his take on this particular situation. Also, my contract with C-SPAN runs out tomorrow, although whether I'd be still considered to have a conflict after that is not an issue I've seen addressed before. Anyhow, one way or the other, I will see to their updating sometime in early 2014. If you'd be willing to give those references another look before I resubmit it, just let me know, I'd certainly appreciate it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


I'm sure you're doing your due diligence, but I thought you should see this. It's mentioned that citing the staff is not preferable, but doesn't really say where. –Fredddie 01:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I figured something like that, but I don't know of where this practice has been determined to be disallowed. Imzadi 1979  01:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
@Fredddie: It's at Help:Citation Style 1#Authors. You both may be interested in participating in the conversation at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Procedure when author is .22Staff.22. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


Just wanted to let you know that I have acquired a Canada shapefile. If you can point me towards better roads shapefiles than what NHPN provides, I could get started on making new maps for Michigan. –Fredddie 03:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Michigan Center for Geographic Information has shapefiles, but we ran into some issues with using it before. Imzadi 1979  03:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hrm. When I made the map for M-6 a while back, I had to do some adjusting to get the KML and the NHPN data to line up. I'm just trying to avoid having to do that every time. –Fredddie 05:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Canada Roads WikiProject classes

In Template:Canada Roads WikiProject, you have enabled redirect & draft for the main assessment but there are more places further down in the template which also need it setting for it to work with all the taskforces. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I got that fixed. Imzadi 1979  00:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

More pictures are better, deleating pictures is just obnoxious

Saltysailor (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no. Wikipedia is not an image repository; we have Commons for that. --Rschen7754 05:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
@Saltysailor: if you're referring to an image gallery with a single photo added to the Arroyo Seco Parkway article, that article has enough images elsewhere. The one you added was of poor quality (bluish tint from windshield, crooked angle, reflection of the dashboard, etc) and added little value to an already well-illustrated article. In that case, the photo deserved to be removed; if/when it's moved to commons, it will be available from commons:Category:Arroyo Seco Parkway along with the other extra images. I've corrected the deficiencies in the image, so the improved version can go to Commons at any time. Imzadi 1979  07:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

you ever dive the ca110?Saltysailor (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are asking if I have ever driven the freeway, that's not relevant to the question at hand. Imzadi 1979  11:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee State Route 474

Hi Imzadi1979, The shopping complex was originally the only reason the road was built i remember hearing about on the news about the road opening, but then when shopping center fell they extended it to SR-160. And recently the shopping center was revived. I was onlyt trying to make it better. --ACase0000 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's not what was in the article. There was nothing in there tying the information to the road, which made it look like extraneous details. You need to tie that information in to why it matters to the road, otherwise it is extraneous fluff that shouldn't be there.
Also, you should be more consistent about using the periods in "U.S." versus dropping them. You've been using "U.S. state"* but "US Route 70". Also, you should put the abbreviation after the first usage, not the second one, and if the second usage is currently close to the first, it should not be linked, even if it is in a separate section
*There is an article titled "U.S. state" which is commonly linked. That would be more appropriate than [[United States|U.S.]] state, but if you link to "Tennessee", that article will explain the concept of a state of the US, or it will have the link there to direct readers. We should always point our readers to the most specific, but pertinent, article, which in this case is the article on the state, not the article on the concept of a state. Imzadi 1979  22:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok sorry!! --ACase0000 (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


Hey, would you like to be an admin? Philroc (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


Um, why are you reverting a bot maintained page? --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not, but sometimes when you scroll your watch list on an iPad, the browser selects a link in error. If that link is a rollback link, then... Imzadi 1979  00:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


Re Talk:Spaghetti Junction they are lists. see WP:NOTDAB and the example Talk:List of peaks named Signal Mountain they are nothing to do with dabs, although they sometimes look and act it. I took the bold move of undoing you, please ping me if you still disagree. Widefox; talk 19:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The HWY project considers them a form of disambiguation page, and I have partially restored the assessment change. There is a gadget that displays the assessment of an article under a color-coded title. That gadget displays set indices in dab-class aqua no matter the assessment on the talk page if a SI template is present on the page. Otherwise it would display in list-class purple, which if does not. Imzadi 1979  00:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
@Widefox: looking at Category:Disambig-Class Highways articles, just in the Ls along there are: Talk:List of highways named Highway of Heroes, Talk:List of highways numbered 1, Talk:List of highways numbered 150, Talk:List of highways numbered 1D, Talk:List of highways numbered 1X, Talk:List of highways numbered 2A, Talk:List of highways numbered 31E, and 21 others, all set indices, all assessed as Disambig-Class to separate them from more traditional List-Class articles organized by topical area like: Talk:List of highways in Argentina, Talk:List of highways in Barbados, Talk:List of highways in Brazil, etc. In fact, WP:WikiProject Disambiguation even tags set indices as under their scope, furthering the claim they are a form of disambiguation. Imzadi 1979  00:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm no expert at what leeway projects have to call things what they want, but that looks like a local consensus to me, due to the fact it flies in the face of the definition of SIAs being lists, and explicitly never being dabs. That may create confusion (SIAs are not constrained by the dab format for example). I suggest the project take that up with the the SIA talk page / dab project. Looking at A road, the lack of conformance to a dab page (template use and partial matches) would indicate it would be better off as an SIA in my opinion, so it is currently miscategorised as a dab, alternatively a conversion to a broad concept article. IMHO.
WP:NOTDAB is quite clear, where does WProject disambig tag SIAs as their (our) scope? I suggest copying this into the dab project talk page for more opinions. Regards Widefox; talk 01:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The assessments exist for the convenience of the project. You're free to disagree, but HWY practice is that set indices are a form of disambiguation, even if they aren't strictly disambiguation pages, per se. They're not lists in the sense that they'll never be taken to FLC in their current form. The bureaucracy around DAB/SI pages is maddening and very inconsistent. Imzadi 1979  01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that since these set index articles, for example, List of highways numbered 2, point users towards the appropriate subject they were hoping to find when they type in Route 2, it is for all intensive purposes a disambiguation page. Regardless, the premise of WP:NOTDAB is to set out the "articles" that do not need to follow the styling of WP:DAB, not talk pages. It has no bearing on the individual WikiProject class assessments or vice-versa, which is the point under scrutiny. Wikiproject Highway is free to form its own local consensus on the methodology for classing its articles and lists. Other WikiProjects may, at their discretion, tag the article under their banner as a list. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This is similar to the distinction between a Stub and a Stub-Class article. WP:USRD and WP:HWY, among other projects, maintains a strong distinction there as well. A "stub" is just a short article. However, for assessment purposes, longer articles may be considered Stub-Class for the projects because they use a concept called the "Big Three" to rate the content. Highway articles are expected to have a "Route description", a "History" and then a junction/exit list section. If it has all of those Big Three, it's a C or a B depending on how the article is cited and formatted. If it only has two, it's a Start, and if it only has one, or the content has yet to be separated from the lead, it's a Stub-Class. In addition, if an article section is extremely short compared to expectations of the subject highway, or if the section is very disorganized, it can be discounted for the purposes of assessment. Guess what, that assessment scheme is perfectly acceptable, and so is assessing set indices as Disambig-Class.
@Widefox: if you feel so strongly that SIs can't be Disambig-Class, I have a suggestion. How about the creation of an SI-Class to track them separate from lists and dab pages? Imzadi 1979  01:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


Firstly, great username! Secondly, I wanted you to know the "Brainstorming" page is historical, was controversial even among supporters, and in no way represents the current thinking. (I've marked it historical and removed the link to it) Lastly, I agree it would take a site-wide RFC to deviate from Mainpage status quo. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Fuck peer review, again

  1. Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
  2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

Cirt (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Highways

The template does not support FM-Class as a separate class from File-Class. Can you make this change? --AdmrBoltz 21:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The class was added. @WOSlinker: any ideas why the class mask isn't handling this? Imzadi 1979  21:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't switched on in Template:WikiProject Highways/class but it is now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Strike above, it was set inline using FM=yes but it should have been fm=yes -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

American football

Hey, I noticed you added a metrication tag to the American football article. I understand why you added this but I have removed it per MOS#CONVERSIONS, which notes specifically that articles on American football do not need to convert to metric units after each American unit is used. There may be need for extra conversions in the article, but it is by no means required. Toa Nidhiki05 14:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concurrency (road)

None of the sources you suggested are reliable. A forum is never a reliable source, and the rest are just passing mentions on DOT pages. Do you have anything that's reliable or not? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: if that was a forum of user-generated postings, I would agree. However, that was a company-generated help forum. The content there was written by the technical support people behind ArcGIS. That means it qualifies as a reliable source. Imzadi 1979  00:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Then why not add the sources? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the only editor here; you're welcome to participate in cleaning up the article. As for me, I'm on a lower activity level lately in terms of editing, so at some point I may get around to it. Imzadi 1979  02:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive2

Hey Imzadi :).

So, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive2 you brought up perceived MOS violations around the citation style. We've had quite a few people chip in on it - people seem to trend towards "blue book isn't particularly nice, but the MOS doesn't prohibit it". Would you be willing to either strike your oppose or respond to the comments thus far, if you're not convinced? As you probably know, FAC is pretty unforgiving to candidacies with oppose votes, whether or not people agree with the oppose votes, and I'd hate to see Greg have to go through the entire process all over again just because we forgot to add some strikethrough tags. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Poke ;). Ironholds (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Clonned Account

Please publish on the talk page of this clonned user User:LrnzɑcliI979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Link Smurf (talkcontribs) 19:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Account has been blocked indef and pages blanked. --AdmrBoltz 20:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
@Link Smurf:, what is your relationship to User:Link Osorio? --Rschen7754 20:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, because Link Smurf was my old account, you can call the administrator to delete my old account. Link Osorio  21:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
And you still haven't changed your signature... --Rschen7754 21:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

NRHP template on GW Parkway article

Hi: I don't understand why you removed the NRHP navbox from George Washington Memorial Parkway. The parkway is listed on the NRHP and is navbox is standard for all NRHP article. See National Register of Historic Places listings in Fairfax County, Virginia.--Pubdog (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If this was a navbox listing all of that counties listings, then I would agree. That box is only useful on the list articles, but not articles on specific listings. Imzadi 1979  12:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The navbox in question lacks a link to the George Washington Parkway article. It doesn't link to other properties on the NRHP in Fairfax County either. There is only one link then in the entire box that's directly applicable to the parkway, and that's the link to the county NRHP list. In that case, a simple link directly to the list in the body of the article or the see also section will achieve the same purpose without the clutter of a navbox that's 95% inapplicable. Imzadi 1979  12:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I-55 Springfield

I understand what you're saying, but the bridges are not in "full" use and therefore part of it is "unused." I don't think the words should be taken so literally, as there are other identical/near identical examples of this (and other non-highways unused) already in the article and state sub-articles. [1], [2](Dover), [3] (invisible one awaiting a citation), [4] (2nd example)], or the closed exits in Louisiana east of New Orleans, Minnesota, or North Dakota. Before the intro to the main article was parsed, there was language that supported these explanations. If you've been following the page for a few years, you probably remember this. I do remember talk regarding construction projects on going and that it wasn't worth including them as they could be updated and changed infinitely until the project is complete. But since this isn't an active project, I think it applies. If the majority thinks these examples should be omitted (especially the Dover one, since it's exactly the same), can you point me to where a consensus was reached regarding this?--Bodo920 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The bridges are still in use, so they aren't "unused", not like most of the entries on those lists. In fact, all of those lists need a good pruning and overhaul to use proper sourcing. A lot of the details given cannot be cited to the maps used, which can only support "there is a section of highway not in use as of the access date given". Imzadi 1979  21:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Some pruning may be in order but for the most part, many of them have proper references. I agree, a map is not a proper reference, which is why I've tried to keep entries to explanations when no reference exists. It can show, however, how things have changed over the years.
I do, however, think a good amount of the entries are unused in their intended purpose. Did you have any precedent for omitting the entry? I still think you're taking the words more literally than intended. If the words are more literal, than I think it becomes a slippery slope as to what is included and what is not. Does it have to be an actual named/numbered highway, planned, current or former? Does it have to be completely unused? Just for cars? Or what if it's repurposed bridge that is now a fishing pier? I think if you say yes to any of these, you end up excluding some good examples. Active construction projects definitely do not warrant inclusion but I think others do.--Bodo920 (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I am just going by the definition as stated in the lead. Otherwise, if we were to include your example, we'd have to consider the example of an overpass that was built to accommodate additional freeway lanes underneath it. In any case, these lists need to be limited in scope or they're useless (and I think they're of limited encyclopedic utility as it is.) Imzadi 1979  19:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edit on the Nunica, Michigan article

I'm proud of you for defending an omission to the link Nunica Internet Social Alliance on the Nunica, Michigan article. And ya know, I think you should be an activist of that cause because it could earn you some access to some free products which I thought ruled!

You can LIKE this Facebook page to be an activist, because I think your edit proves that you could be an activist of an noble cause.

--Highway 231 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have done no such thing. I missed that single-sentence paragraph before, and I have removed it now. It's questionable on its notability. In such a case, I would suggest creating an article on the group, and then waiting to see if it is sent to WP:AFD, and if so, if it has been kept. At that point, you could restore an appropriate mention to the article. In any event, in the Wikipedia world, we are careful to keep neutral, which means we also don't interject personal activism into our work. Imzadi 1979  04:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Great to know. I just thought I'd recommend some activism while I discuss the Nunica topic, because I just thought that a little pride could be shared on user talk pages since user talk pages aren't as strict about content regulation. Also, google testing just convinces me of sufficient notability for some reason. --Highway 231 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Unused

We can leave Morriswa's wall alone since it's not specific to him anymore, but he can join in if he wants. Direct response to last post follows: Well that clears it up...guess consistency is harder than I thought. In response to your second issue, I would say that the abbreviations should be per state and have a one link per state as well. Say U.S. 41 was one article instead of broken down by state. It goes from Florida to Michigan, but the average reader may not know that and shouldn't have to find the internal link (and abbreviation) in Florida when they're down at the bottom in Wisconsin. One option would be to take the entire List of US Unused and make all the states into sub articles, which wouldn't be too much work but would it dilute the article or cause other issues? Some states already have their own, but it was done arbitrarily by someone years back with no hard and fast rhyme/reason. For the route vs highway, I think we'll just chase our tail for a bit on that since everybody has a different opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodo920 (talkcontribs) 22:22, 20 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Most states lack sufficient entries to justify splitting out state-specific lists. Michigan only has three entries, and I merged it back to the national list on that reason. FLC requires about 10 entries to justify a list, so anything else isn't enough to warrant a split in my book. Try to split Michigan back out, and I will merge it back, period.
As for the rest of your comments, I think you're a bit mistaken. There is U.S. Route 41 already to cover the highway in total from Florida to Michigan. Because there are more than three states, each state gets its own "state-detail" article like U.S. Route 41 in Michigan. In dealing with the route vs. highway, we follow the vernacular for that state. In Michigan, we have highways, not routes. To call them otherwise would be like calling I-75 a "motorway" instead of a "freeway". It's following the principle of using the appropriate variety of English, but on a sub-national scale. Imzadi 1979  23:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're threatening me on the splitting issue. Nowhere did I say I was going to do it; it was just a suggestion. I don't know what this FLC acronym is, but again, if you look at the article talk, you'll see someone split out some states just because there were more than the screen could show you without scrolling. Again, there's no need for threats and being defensive. I was just trying to have a civil discussion and was curious about your opinion. Thought that was pretty clear...
As for my US 41 example, I didn't explain it how I intended, my mistake. Let me try again. US 321, the first example I could find, traverses three states but has only one article instead of separate ones for Tennessee, N. Carolina, and S. Carolina. Pretend that US 321 had an unused highway example in all states. My suggestion is still the same: I would advocate putting an internal link of US 321 in Tennessee, N. Carolina, and S. Carolina. If you only put it in S. Carolina and the reader was looking at the Tennessee entry, he/she would have to search for the 321 link instead of having it right there. The average reader might not know where the first 321 mention was. Yea, S and T are close to each other, but what if it were Arkansas and Wisconsin?
Also, for example, US 26 passes through four states, yet it has only two state-specific article (and is not the only example of this), so the three state rule isn't always the case, the information of said case not being plain to everyone. Obviously, not every article is perfect, but the rule you state is certainly not followed very closely.--Bodo920 (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
your US 321 example makes no sense. As for the three-state rule, there are exceptions, but in general, sub articles will eventually be created. FLC = Featured List Candidates, the process by which List-Class articles are upgraded to FL-Class (Featured List), which should be the ultimate goal for every list. Of course some examples may need a lot of work to achieve that... Imzadi 1979  06:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, re-reading your US 321 example, Bodo920, I think I see what you may have been trying to say. Since US 321 passes through 3 states, eventually it should have state-detail articles. Even if it doesn't (like US 8, which because of the relative lengths of the states' sections we left it all merged), the "U.S. Route 321 in <state>" redirects should be created already. If there were three unused highway examples, each in the separate states, then the state-specific links could/should be used. Even if they weren't, for some reason, the examples would still be listed under the appropriate states anyway. So I guess I have no idea what your complaint is about.
That said, that entire list needs a great pruning. A lot of it is very poorly sourced, and the entire topic comes out very much like "fancruft". I think we may need to cut this entire thing back from a "list of" into just a general article about the concept of and "unused highway" using a few well-sourced examples instead of trying to be a comprehensive list of dubious utility. A few of the examples once listed for Michigan were quite dubious, so I deleted them, and when there were only a few left, I merged the Michigan list back to the national one. That way I have one less list in the state's highway system to worry about, especially when the concept is so amenable to funcruft and dubiously notable. Imzadi 1979  21:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
So, you are trying to make this page kind of like concurrency (road)? You are saying that there should be a few examples, and NOT every single one that exists. Then, what about the subpages? Should they be treated the same way? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
If someone tried to make a "List of concurrencies in the United States" or even a list of them by state, I'd oppose such a thing. With this, we should have a short description of the concept of an unused highway, along with a few specific ways that such an item develops. One would be a section of highway that is supposed to be extended but hasn't yet, leaving a stub of unused highway behind like the section of the St. Joseph Valley Parkway north of the Napier Avenue exit that is awaiting the construction of the rest of the US 31 freeway connection. Cut this down to a few specific types/causes with a limited number of notable, and well-sourced, examples for those kinds of unused highway. The rest can all be deleted as redundant.
With unused highways, there have been some questionable items listed, like the stub of I-94 in Michigan that was unused between the M-239 exit and the state line until Indiana built their connection. That's section of freeway has been in use for around 40 years, so calling it "unused" is a bit silly unless we're using it as a historical example only. Imzadi 1979  21:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was pretty much my point. Each state can have one internal link plus #state if it exists, which was the goal I advocated striving for. That way, the reader doesn't have to search for the U.S. 321 link to read about the route if he/she's in the TN section and the link is back up in NC. I wasn't complaining in the least but rather--stating again--trying to have a discussion about it and in fact directly responding to your question. If anything, I had a problem with how you were responding because I didn't understand your jumping at me.
I don't think the list needs a great amount of pruning, but it depends on the scope of the article. If you believe it is "fancruft" and should exist as a couple of famous examples (Somerset Freeway, Lancaster Goat Path, etc), then yes, it would be scaled way down. But what's the definition of fancruft? 50 people like it/500 people/5000? I completely agree that it isn't a list of things that has broad appeal. I just don't know how one would make that determination. I like the list and can't exactly explain why. Perhaps it's the thoughts of what might have been, what was but is not any more, aka the evolution of roads. Lots of examples are part of the famous freeway revolts across the country, which takes it out of the fancruft camp if you ask me.--Bodo920 (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources, independent of their subjects, and not including roadgeek sites that take note of these examples. If there aren't, we're in the realm of fan cruft. The classic notability example I use goes something like this. The Michigan State Trunkline Highway System is clearly notable. Because of size limitations, we can't list all of the highways in Michigan as a part of that article, so we have List of Interstate Highways in Michigan, List of U.S. Highways in Michigan and List of state trunklines in Michigan. Because many highways can be covered in greater depth than the raw statistics in those tables, we have separate articles on most of the state highways in Michigan. In some cases, the coverage has been merged together, either in lists or to parent articles (BUS US 2 is in the US 2 in MI article, for example). In order to have complete coverage of this important topic, a highway system used by millions of vehicles daily, we need this level of extensive coverage. Unused highways are very minor in comparison, of interest only to niche audiences.
Most of the unused highway examples lack independent, third-party sources covering the examples. The unused piece of the St. Joseph Valley Parkway has been written about in The Herald-Palladium, the newspaper in that area. It's not about people "liking it", but rather if the concept has been noted in reliable sources, and putting the concept in the proper context. Imzadi 1979  23:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Een ster voor jou!

  De ster van verdienste
Thanks for helping me with the road articles, you're probably a bit annoyed because I make mistakes sometimes. So thanks for not being mad or anything. Keep on going! Thewombatguru (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

WTF? --NE2 20:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@NE2: that page was deleted, and Twinkle was supposed to remove the link... apparently it literally removed the link and didn't remove the text... Imzadi 1979  20:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't you have noticed that after the first or second edit? Or are you running a bot? --NE2 20:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Twinkle, for that function, is an automated tool, and it handled all of the edits for me. In that function, it just runs down the list and says "completed", but it's not a bot. If you want to complain, WT:Twinkle. Imzadi 1979  20:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you planning to fix it? --NE2 22:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)



I just created the first article for provincial roads in the Netherlands, because you seem to know everything about roads, could you take a look and tell me if it looks ok? I'd like to make more articles, and I don't want to screw everything up. Thewombatguru (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks good so far. I'm making a few little copy edits here and there, but otherwise, it's a great start. Imzadi 1979  00:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
@Thewombatguru: you'll want to expand the citations out to list authors, titles, publishers, dates, etc at some point. Imzadi 1979  00:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok thanks, and what do you mean with the citations? The references? Thewombatguru (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at Interstate 296, and you'd see that ever footnote gives the title of the source, the date it was published (if known), the author (if known), the publisher, etc. Especially with online sources, if the link goes dead, it may be possible to find the source someplace else. See also WP:Linkrot. Imzadi 1979  01:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I added some of that, does it look good like this? I have to say, searching for sources is quite boring but of course it has to be done. Thewombatguru (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
That looks better. Something I might suggest, if you're using {{cite web}} is to use the |trans-title= and |language= parameters so indicate that the sources are in Dutch and what the title translates to English. It just helps those of us understand what is being used as sources better. Imzadi 1979  18:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll add that two parameters, the page now also has a junction/exit list, but I do not know where to find the kilometers, google maps? Thewombatguru (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
In the US and Canada, our highways are maintained at the state- or provincial-levels. The appropriate agency of the state or provincial government (a "department of transportation" or "ministry of transportation" in many cases) will typically have some sort of documentation that we can use for the distances. In some cases though, those documents are not readily accessible for certain states, so we have used Google Maps to measure and compute them. There are better sources to use, but Google is ok as a limited fall-back option. Imzadi 1979  19:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
We don't have that in the Netherlands, I mailed Rijkswaterstaat and asked if they could give me some data, so I'll wait for that, meanwhile I added the kilometers using google maps, the article looks done to me. Thewombatguru (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
And you gave my article a Class C, but what does that actually mean, according to this page there are only a hundred pages that are equally rated or higher, does that mean there are only a hundred pages that are better than this one? I don't think so... Thewombatguru (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The way I assess HWY articles is similar to how USRD does assessments. Each highway article should normally have the "Big Three": a route description, a history and some sort of junction or exit list. (Normally on the last one, we call it a "junction list", "major intersections" or "exit list".)
  • If an article doesn't have any of those sections separated out, we rate it as a Stub-Class article. (It might not be a Stub based on length, but Stub ≠ Stub-Class necessarily.)
  • If an article only has one of those three sections separated and started, again it's Stub-Class.
  • If an article only has two of those three sections, it's Start-Class.
  • If an article has all three, we then look to the referencing and content to see if it's C- or B-Class.
In this case, the RD section is unreferences (not even a footnote to a paper map or Google Maps), and the junction list table lacks a footnote for the lengths. The history is well cited, and maybe it could be expanded a bit at some point based on what is there. (If this roadway is as steeped in history as is said, I'd expect a little bit more content. For now, it's fine though.) Also, the lead needs to be expanded to touch upon all of the sections of the article. By my thinking, the summary of the junction list table is the brief list of junctions in the infobox, and then a brief summary of the RD and history needs to appear in the lead.
Details missing: no year that this was designated the N34. No length in the infobox. No explicit mention of who maintains the road. The RD usually provides the reader with a geographic sequence of the road from one end to the other. At around 55 miles, I'd probably expect about two paragraph the size of what's there talking about the landscape (rivers crossed, major roads intersection, landmarks along the way, etc) along with some discussion about the turns, direction changes, etc. If the citations are added, and some more basic details are added, I'd easily upgrade this to a B, and I'd probably suggest you nominate it at WP:GAN for Good Article. Imzadi 1979  21:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation! I'll try to improve it in the next couple of days, and I'll also start on some more articles. But one thing I don't understand. The main Highway project is the parent of the USRD, but why aren't they assessed the same way? Or at least they are not in the same table. Thewombatguru (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely understand your last question, but I think I know what you're asking. HWY is the parent to AURD, CRWP, HKRD, UKRD and USRD, the projects for Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, the UK and the US. (There is also INR, the Indian Roads project, but that's handled slightly differently.) At the moment, each project has its own banner template (except India), and each is assessed separately. At some point, we plan to make a table for HWY like WP:USRD/A/S, and when we do that, the banners will generate the statistics for a single assessment table in addition to their own regional statistics. Imzadi 1979  22:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes that was what I meant, sorry for my English sometimes. And I'm looking forward to how this project will become better :) Thewombatguru (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
We have a lot of unassessed articles for the global HWY project, while USRD has been fully assessed for years. We even do regular audits to make sure articles get reassessed. Right now, we've been working on upgrading {{jct}}, improving some stuff with {{infobox road}}, and we'll get around to other projects like the assessment stuff at some point. We also need interested editors in other countries to help out. Imzadi 1979  22:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
About the {{jct}} template, on the Provincial road N34 (Netherlands) article some N images/html-code of the roads doesn't show up. Could you fix this, tell me how to fix it, or say it can't be fixed, thank you. Also the 'R' road type is missing for the Netherlands. It's a so called "Recreatieve weg" or in english a recreational road. Thewombatguru (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I can look at that later, but Fredddie may be able to fix it faster than I can. (I have a bunch of stuff going on here in real life at the moment.) Imzadi 1979  22:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok thanks for helping and good luck in real life.Thewombatguru (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Response to your deletion request

I see you've found my article List of Intrastate U.S. Highways. I have to disagree with your proposal to delete it, though, particularly given that it's been only hours since it was approved. The article exists in the same spirit as the List of intrastate Interstate Highways, and in fact my article is more interesting than the other one, since most people expect U.S. highways to exist in more than one state. After all, they are federal highways and not state ones, and although Interstates are also federal, there is no rule or policy against creating new intrastate Interstates.

I'm currently working on creating more links to my article, to give it more visibility, so please don't rush to judgment. Thank you.

Greggens (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Greggens: actually, you have a few factual errors in your comments. US Highways are not federal, and the federal government has no role in their creation or management. TTheir designations are assigned by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, which is a trade association for the state DOTs. USDOT/FHWA has no voting role in AASHTO. Like the Interstates, US Highways are owned by the states. There are some exceptions, but generally the only roadways owned by the federal government are things like forest highways, roads in national parks and the like. The federal government may finance improvements to US Highways, but they also subsidize improvements to state-numbered highways. Priorities on that funding would go to components of the National Highway System, a system that also includes state-numbered highways, county roads and city streets.
The concept of an intrastate Interstate is different, because it has an implied contradiction in the name. There are third-party articles on that concept, but a Google search turns up no sources on intrastate US Highways other than Wikipedia. If people really did make the assumption you think they're making, they'd have written articles about the concept of intrastate US Highways. Imzadi 1979  04:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
They may not technically be federal highways, but they are indeed national highways, so the point that I made is still valid. Also, you might want to check out AASHTO's policy on intrastate U.S. highways. The fact that there is such a policy is notable. Greggens (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Interstates are also a "national system" of highways, as are forest highways, National Scenic Byways, National Forest Scenic Byways and Bureau of Land Management Back Country Byways. The three-digit Interstates rarely cross state lines, and the other systems have a majority of components that do not cross state lines. That refutes your point that national highways that do not cross state lines are noteworthy.
I have seen such policy, but that isn't sufficient to warrant creating a separate list. It is worth noting in the main article. It is also worth noting on the list with appropriate notes, which I have added. It is not worth a separate article on a topic no one outside of transportation officials and roadgeeks have yet to take notice of. (And if single-state US Highways were such a priority, they'd have all been eliminated since AASHTO enacted that rule in the 1970s.) Imzadi 1979  04:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but just because 3-digit Interstates aren't noteworthy for remaining intrastate doesn't mean that intrastate U.S. Highways aren't notable. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison you're making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggens (talkcontribs) 07:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article

Notifying you, as you provided a copy-edit for the article:

I've nominated Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article candidacy.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

Cirt (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Cirt: I didn't copy edit the article; rather, I fixed a few oddly formed citations, and I have no further interest in the article. Imzadi 1979  05:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Understood, no worries, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Hello- I meant to say thanks for the help regarding a map for the Pocahontas Coalfield. Not trying to sound weird, but I very much do appreciate the fact you gave me data that I can use to help get a map made, thats a rare quality most of the timeCoal town guy (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Imzadi 1979  16:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:NE2 insulting a user using WP:AWB. Thank you. Rschen7754 17:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Interstate 69 template

The entire route of Tennessee State Route 22 is not going to be part of I-169 only the freeway/expressway portion from Union City to Martin in which there is a section on Interstate 169 in TN-22's article, See Here. --ACase0000 (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@ACase0000: yes, but if you use the section, the link won't turn bold on the SR-22 article. The link should be bold on that article, so you can't use the "#Interstate 169" in the link. Imzadi 1979  04:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It shows it Bold for me. It is on the far right side of screen of your desktop or mobile device. --ACase0000 (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It appears bold because the link in the navbox template is to [[Tennessee State Route 22|169]] not [[Tennessee State Route 22#Interstate 169|169]] If you were to change it back, it will change from bold to a blue link, and that's why I changed it. Imzadi 1979  04:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, Ok Sorry. --ACase0000 (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

  I like those work Prakashfarkade (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


Hey, I finally found two sources for when PA 39 was established!

More detail is on the talk page of PA 39, where I pinged you. Let me know where to upload the articles since I found them on, because they're worth a look. Lots of information in there. Thanks! --hmich176 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


See Talk:Controlled-access_highway#Revert KVDP (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Help Needed


Can you please explain what exactly was done in this revision

As I am not so expert in editing the page, I am unable to understand what was done in this revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saumechanica (talkcontribs) 06:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Saumechanica: I did just what the edit summary says: "Imzadi1979 moved page Maharashtra State Highway 250 to State Highway 250 (Maharashtra): match naming convention". The article used to be titled "Maharashtra State Highway 250" and after I moved it, it is now titled "State Highway 250 (Maharashtra)". I did this to match naming convention"; all of the other highways' articles are named "State Highway XXX (Maharashtra)" where the XXX is the number. That's the naming convention in use, so I moved the article to match it. Imzadi 1979  06:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


For citation reference names that also include a numerical date, is it OK to use a m-d or m-d-yy format, or must the date format always be yyyy-mm-dd as per Wikipedia date format guidelines?

Does it really matter which numerical date format is used since the citation reference name, with whatever date format is used, will not affect what is shown in the displayed text?

If an article is nominated for Good Article status, would all of the numerical date formats in any citation reference names be required to be changed from m-d or m-d-yy to yyyy-mm-dd, or could those alternate date formats that I mentioned remain?

I did not see anything in the refname guidelines that addressed this issue. Thanks for your consideration. Wondering55 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wondering55: to answer your questions, in brief:
  • No, there is no rule on reference names, if you mean <ref name "reference name"> ... </ref>. Name them whatever you like.
  • No, the name assigned to a reference will not appear in the article text. It might be used in some of the links generated for the footnote numbers in the text, but honestly no one will notice. You could use a random serial number of some kind to name each reference, and it would not affect the formatting inside the <ref name "reference name"> ... </ref> tags because the name and the formatting are 100% independent.
  • No, the Good Article Criteria are totally silent on date formatting and citation formatting. Technically, you could format a third of the footnotes using our templates, a third in manually typed APA style and a third in manually typed MLA, and it would still pass. That would mean that the MLA cites should have "25 April 2014", the APA cites should have "2014, April 25", and our in-house style that goes along with the templates would allow you to use the ISO style (2014-04-25), the "middle endian" style (April 25, 2014) or the "little endian" style used by MLA, and that would be fine by the GA Criteria.
    • The MOS would still say the article was sloppy and non-compliant, but GAs only have a limited subset of the MOS required. I encourage editors to make an attempt at some consistency in formatting, because a Good Article (formal status) should still look like a good article (opinion).
I hope that this answers your questions. Imzadi 1979  21:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, as usual, for your very thorough views that point out Wikipedia requirements and preferences. Wondering55 (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


For citation reference names that also include a numerical date, is it OK to use a m-d or m-d-yy format, or must the date format always be yyyy-mm-dd as per Wikipedia date format guidelines?

Does it really matter which numerical date format is used since the citation reference name, with whatever date format is used, will not affect what is shown in the displayed text?

If an article is nominated for Good Article status, would all of the numerical date formats in any citation reference names be required to be changed from m-d or m-d-yy to yyyy-mm-dd, or could those alternate date formats that I mentioned remain?

I did not see anything in the refname guidelines that addressed this issue. Thanks for your consideration. Wondering55 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wondering55: to answer your questions, in brief:
  • No, there is no rule on reference names, if you mean <ref name "reference name"> ... </ref>. Name them whatever you like.
  • No, the name assigned to a reference will not appear in the article text. It might be used in some of the links generated for the footnote numbers in the text, but honestly no one will notice. You could use a random serial number of some kind to name each reference, and it would not affect the formatting inside the <ref name "reference name"> ... </ref> tags because the name and the formatting are 100% independent.
  • No, the Good Article Criteria are totally silent on date formatting and citation formatting. Technically, you could format a third of the footnotes using our templates, a third in manually typed APA style and a third in manually typed MLA, and it would still pass. That would mean that the MLA cites should have "25 April 2014", the APA cites should have "2014, April 25", and our in-house style that goes along with the templates would allow you to use the ISO style (2014-04-25), the "middle endian" style (April 25, 2014) or the "little endian" style used by MLA, and that would be fine by the GA Criteria.
    • The MOS would still say the article was sloppy and non-compliant, but GAs only have a limited subset of the MOS required. I encourage editors to make an attempt at some consistency in formatting, because a Good Article (formal status) should still look like a good article (opinion).
I hope that this answers your questions. Imzadi 1979  21:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, as usual, for your very thorough views that point out Wikipedia requirements and preferences. Wondering55 (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (and a request)

Thank you for this edit. I pointed out that problem months ago, but unfortunately, my comments were, for the most part, dismissed. That being said, I notice that the template italicises the word "present", which is incorrect. Could you please fix this too? Thank you! Toccata quarta (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I changed present to present. Honestly, I was surprised to find an infobox template that doesn't use {{infobox}} for its formatting. That template could probably be greatly simplified by someone just by switching over to using that template to build this one. Imzadi 1979  07:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Renaming A motorways in The Netherlands to Rijksweg


Could I request a move of the A motorways in the Netherlands to Rijksweg? So it would be Rijksweg 50 instead of A50 motorway (Netherlands). Thewombatguru (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Do English-language sources use Rijksweg more than motorway? If not, they should not be moved. Imzadi 1979  22:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is a difference between the two, for example, motorway A50 and N50 are both called rijksweg 50, there are other examples that a rijksweg changes names over and over again, so if you'd want to make an article about an A motorway it would be skipping the N motorway parts, and on the page of the N motorway it would be skipping the A motorway parts. By combining the two in a Rijksweg article you just have a continuing road. (Another example, the Rijksweg 2 starts as A2 above Maastricht, then becomes N2 in Maastricht, and continues as A2 after it again.) (And sorry for archiving, I missclicked) Thewombatguru (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I just realized it's similar to the European routes, you have like road A in country A, road B in country B and road C in country C, and the entire route is called E followed by a figure.Thewombatguru (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

DYK for List of Interstate Highways in Michigan

v/r - TP 22:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 23:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Writer's Barnstar
Thanks so much for your contributions to List of Interstate Highways in Michigan. It looks fantastic, and as a fellow Michiganian it really made me happy to see it on the main page as a DYK. Please accept this barnstar as a small token of my appreciation. Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) Imzadi 1979  00:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hagerty Insurance Agency Article

On 12 May 2014, you made the comment that "the company is notable as one of the leaders in speciality insurance for collector cars" in regard to the Hagerty Insurance Agency article. What needs to happen next is for someone to back that up with reliable sources/supporting references. If that is done there is no problem. As the article stands now, there are no references other than one to the Agency's own website which clearly does not qualify as a reliable/independent reference. Melbourne3163 (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Melbourne3163: like that? This isn't my first time around the block writing articles. Imzadi 1979  06:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I was only referring to the (then) lack of references in this particular article, nothing personal here, I assure you . Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox road/GA template talk pages

Ugh. Why did you undo my assessment of those template talk pages? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

They are unnecessary to the functioning of the project, and I know of no other subtemplates assessed like that. In any case, with the Lua conversions coming this year, all of those subtemplates will eventually be deleted. Imzadi 1979  10:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. How was I to know that they were "unnecessary to the functioning of the project"?
  2. How was I to know that they will be deleted in the coming months? Am I a crystal ball? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
First off, there are thousands of subtemplates, none of which are tagged for any projects. That should have been the biggest clue that such tagging is not needed. If it was, someone would have tagged all of them long ago. The only things that really need to be tagged and assessed are:
  1. Articles
  2. Lists
  3. Main templates, but not subtemplates, doc pages, nor sandboxes
    • Talk pages for subtemplates, doc pages or sandboxes should actually be redirected to the talk page of the main template to force editors to consolidate any discussion into a single location. There is a bot that has been performing automated redirect creations for /doc pages when they're created.
  4. Project pages/books/portals/etc.
    • But many of the talk pages have been redirected to avoid fragmenting discussion.
  5. Media (images, sounds, videos) that have been featured or selected for P:USRD
    • Since most of these are hosted on Commons, there's very limited utility to tagging media because no bot will notify the project of any Commons deletion discussions.
Tagging things like categories and redirects is a luxury item that USRD does that many other projects don't. One other thing to remember is that when you go on tagging sprees like that, the bot will flood the assessment log when it updates. Those of us who watch the log don't need to sort through hundreds of subtemplate pages to find the actual assessment changes. Imzadi 1979  17:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Interstate 94N

Why did you remove the category about Muskegon from the page? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The proposed highway may or may not have entered Muskegon. I-96 does not enter Muskegon now. Also, with a number that only existed on a planning map, that had its numbered totally changed by the time final numbers were assigned to the highways, it doesn't seem like it needs further categorization. Imzadi 1979  02:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay. The history section of the target page made it seem like I-94N was eventually numbered I-196, not I-96. Which is correct? Can a little clarification be made to the page? Thanks. And thanks for not sounding mean and acting like I'm an idiot. I was bold and categorized as I thought was correct. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It was I-196 from 1959 until 1963, and then it was I-96 after those numbers were switched west of their junction in Grand Rapids. Imzadi 1979  02:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Parish roads in Louisiana

Just curious, but how would I get the parish roads to show up on exit lists? If I use LA|PR|22, it goes to a Puerto Rican road, but if I use LA|CR|22, it's a dead link. 'Mcdonaat 02:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fredddie and Happy5214: thoughts? I personally don't know. Imzadi 1979  02:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
If it were allowed to do county roads, it would work out perfectly, but even copying a Florida template with a working county route shows a dead link. 'Mcdonaat 03:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Fredddie's edit merging the state-level types into {{jct/shield/USA}} is causing this issue. PR is defined by that template to refer to Puerto Rico, with no possibility of an override. The Lua version will fix this, and a lot of other things. For example:   PR 22 -happy5214 05:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh crap. I suppose using CR instead of PR will work for the time being...    PR 22 (PR) / PR 22 (CR) –Fredddie 11:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I fixed it. I threw in a switch separating Louisiana and Puerto Rico. As you can see, both PR and CR work the same now. –Fredddie 11:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
For some odd reason, it works by using the jct/sandbox instead of the jct/state but who knows why? It might just be a bug, but it works for now to just use the sandbox addition. 'Mcdonaat 05:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Table nesting problem

I want to keep my User:Morriswa/Highways page. I decided to split the Interstate table into sub tables. For some reason, the sub tables are nested within each other. I don't know what is wrong. I have looked at Help:Table, Help:Table/Introduction to tables, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables pages, but they didn't really help. Can you please help? Thank you so much. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Tables end with }} instead of |} . Imzadi 1979  08:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I made sure that the tables end with two braces, but it didn't correct the problem. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, typo. Templates start with two opening braces and end with two closing braces. Tables start with an opening brace followed immediately with a pipe, and they end with the reverse: a pipe and a closing brace. 09:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much for bearing with me and helping me through this problem of mine. Your help worked! :-) Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Indian Roads


Is there anything I can do to help on WikiProject Indian Roads yet? Thewombatguru (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, in implementing the banner template, we weren't tagging if the articles had maps, infoboxes or RJLs. So |needs-map= |needs-infobox= and |needs-rjl= still need to be added and filled in as appropriate.
  • Another point is that {{INRD}} will track which states or Union territories pertain to the article, much like {{USRD}} uses |state= to track which states are involved. Each of the assessment categories for each of the states or territories will need to be created as those parameters are added.

    Otherwise, there isn't anything that needs to be done at the moment. Imzadi 1979  21:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

    Are their categories for the needs x pages? And for the Union Territories, where can I find a list of them? Thewombatguru (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    There are full details in the template documentation. Category:WikiProject Indian roads articles without needs-map tracks the articles that need that parameter filled in. The banner assumes that unless |needs-rjl=no, it adds the article to Category:WikiProject Indian roads articles without a road junction list.
    For the codes to use with |state= or |staten= (where n can be a number 1 through 20), look at ISO_3166-2:IN and drop the "IN-" prefix. Imzadi 1979  22:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


Hypothetical: If say that "road x" crosses "road y" at "location z", would not coordinates in the article linking to maps through GeoHack showing the statement to be true constitute an implicit source? (I hope I'm not being too presumptuous to think your answer will be: Of course!) Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would you need to cite a specific intersection, and only that one intersection, except on an article about only that intersection? (Most intersections will not be notable and so should not receive articles.) A KML drawing a line along the entire length of a roadway would serve as an implicit source for all of the intersections at once. However, we don't do implicit sources on Wikipedia except in one context: the description plot of a book or movie is considered sourced to the book or movie itself. Any analysis, opinion, or criticism of the plot has to be cited to other sources.
I would still require an explicit citation to map as a footnote in the article at the higher stages of article writing and assessment. In fact, because of the various reliability concerns with the cartography behind Google Maps (and the other similar services), I will never cite an article to just their map. I will always pair that citation with one to a paper map published by the state's department of transportation (or equivalent agency). I link to the satellite view on Google Maps to provide additional context beyond the paper map, but the printed DOT publication is my primary source for the routing of the roadway and the locations it traverses. Imzadi 1979  22:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

High Desert Discovery Scenic Byway

Was pretty sure the mile posts along High Desert Discovery Byway/Oregon Route 205 run north-to-south since it becomes a dirt road at south end of the route. I checked on-line video of the route to be sure. Here’s video of the section of Discovery byway between Burns (in the north) and Frenchglen (in the south). If you check road side mile markers you will see they begin at Burns and get larger as you head south. Too make your review easier, you can find clear picture of miler marker 15 at video time 4:46 and mile maker 17 at video time marker 5:02. Wiki-Roads [USRD's] route description rule says "Regardless of the route's length, progression should follow the mileposts as they are maintained by the state, typically from south to north, west to east." However, the state of Oregon posts mile marker north-to-south along the Discovery byway/OR 205. That means my north-to-south route description in the article is appropriate. Request you remove the flag you posted on the High Desert Discovery Scenic Byway article. Also, please consider returning Wiki-Oregon assessment since that project may have different criterion for evaluating articles than Wiki-Roads[USRD].--Orygun (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Oregon assessment was not a good one, as I explained, because it overlooked poor writing and missing information. Hopefully a member of that project will see my comments noting the deficiencies in the article and reassess accordingly. The article is a good start, but there's still plenty of work to be done and information to be added, so a B-Class assessment is overly optimistic at the moment.
The issue is one of classification based on subject matter vs. geography. The state-level projects typically lack editors who are well versed in what good article on a roadway should contain. They'll look at an article, see that it is long and full of content, has a bunch of sources, and yet they'll never know that the article could be a bunch of crap. Other editors will say that a certain website on highways is a good source, and yet it's a WP:SPS that can't be used per our policies. (That last isn't the case in the article above, but it does happen.) The U.S. Roads WikiProject has ample experience in determining what a good article on a roadway should look like; we have over 60 Featured Articles and nearly a thousand Good Articles to our credit from all over the country. Imzadi 1979  22:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, article needs work to meet Wiki-Roads standards. What about the north-to-south issues. Above video clearly shows Oregon has posted mile post north-to-south. Also, I've added OR 78 as a component highway in the infobox. Can I remove those two flags now?--Orygun (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
There's some debate on the south-to-north vs. north-to-south issue. In short, the overwhelming majority of articles are going to follow the single standard in the U.S., and the exceptions will be few and stick out like a sore thumb. One faction will say to always to write south-to-north and west-to-east for consistency across the collection of American highway articles, while others will allow the occasional exception. At this point, I don't really care anymore.
In short, USRD is very successful. We've identified a consistent method for writing and researching good articles on our topic area. Our project standards identify the core content needed to make an article good in an encyclopedic sense. We straddle a fine line to provide information without attracting criticism for violating WP:NOT's prohibition against writing a travel guide. We attempt to apply those concepts consistently to over 10,000 articles on major roadways in the U.S. (We specifically exclude city streets because they are quite a bit different than a state highway.) We build templates that keep the presentation of content consistent. Between those templates and our project standards, readers moving from article to article have clear expectations on how to seek out the information they want about specific roadways. If those efforts are going to be devalued on a specific article, you will find that we move on to another one where they are valued. With 50 states and thousands of choices, it's not hard. Imzadi 1979  05:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
USRD rule says: "...progression should follow the mile posts as they are maintained by the state..." While south-to-north is most common, it runs the other way in this case. You press me to follow the USRD rules, format, etc, but don't want to follow the rules when an acceptation is pointed out. That's not right.--Orygun (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I said, there is some debate yet on this point. Even in the cases of inconsistencies, we've still generally kept to the south-to-north or west-to-east rule for consistency across the collection of articles for the US. The number of exceptions is few and far between normally. One Michigan example of this is M-115 (Michigan highway). M-115 is a trunkline that runs southeast–northwest. It is inventoried by MDOT as an east–west highway and signed by MDOT as north–south. Since it is signed north–south, it is written south-to-north to stay consistent with the overwhelming majority of the articles. Only someone who started poking around in the Physical Reference Finder would ever know that the internal mileposts are "backwards", so I may yet remove the note and do the math because there are no mile markers along the highway.
If you poke around in some of the obscure Texas articles, usually things like their Park Roads or Farm to Market Roads, you'll find a handful that are done the other way: written north-to-south or east-to-west to match the mileposts.
There's a recent discussion at Talk:Florida State Road 9B#Mileposts and route description direction where someone noted that the highway is being done north-to-south. The article, at present, is south-to-north. Imzadi 1979  06:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, to help resolve the on-going discussion with regard to this article the south end of this highway ends at a dirt road in Fields, an unincorporated community with a single gas station/store, a one-room school and perhaps 10 people. The north end connects to the incorporated town of Burns and a network of paved highways including OR 78, US 395, and US 20. Hopefully, that will help inform the discussion with regard to this specific highway.--Orygun (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, that doesn't matter much. M-183 (Michigan highway) starts at an abandoned townsite for a 19th century iron smelting community. The southern terminus there is at the gate to the state park at that location now. That article is written south-to-north. The locations of highway termini are all fairly arbitrary. The I-69 Recreational Heritage Route, one of the Michigan Heritage Routes, starts at the Michigan–Indiana state line and ends at the Calhoun–Eaton county line; both locations are pretty much "in the middle of nowhere".
There are exactly two options that I outlined above in these inconsistent situations. We either write the article from MP 0.0 to the end, or we maintain the south-to-north or west-to-east progression. I've given you an example of what that second option looks like with M-115, where the highest MP is at the top of the junction list table instead of the bottom. Good prose descriptions of the routing of a highway rarely mention milepost numbers because they don't make for interesting text. Imzadi 1979  09:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
So what you’re really saying is despite the USRD rule instructing editors to follow the mile posts, only articles write south-to-north are acceptable. In that case the USRD flag banner is wrong. It says "This article is written in the wrong direction. U.S. road articles are generally written in a south-to-north and west-to-east direction in order to follow the order of their mileposts. Please help by rewriting the article in the correct direction." What it should say is: "This article is written in the wrong direction. U.S. road articles are always written in a south-to-north and west-to-east direction regardless of the order of their mileposts. Please help by rewriting the article in the correct direction." How about getting with your USRD teammates to change the banner (and the instructions on the USRD format page) so everyone knows south-to-north is the only acceptable way of addressing a route.--Orygun (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@Orygun: let me be short and sweet. As I've said a couple of times above, you only have two options here:
  1. Write the article south-to-north to be consistent with like 98% (guesstimate) of the road articles for the U.S. Above the junction table that should be added someday, add a note similar to: "Mileposts along OR 205 increase southward" or "ODOT has signed its mileposts north-to-south" or something.
  2. Leave the article in a north-to-south direction knowing it is in a small quantity of articles that will attract attention from some purists.
The typical rule is so pervasive, like we guesstimate 98%, that these cases are very few and far between. If you use option 1, you'll get an article similar to M-115 (Michigan highway) with the "backwards" order of the mileposts in the table, but otherwise all looks consistent with the rest of the articles. If you use option 2, you'll get an article like M-168 (Michigan highway) where the first terminus listed in the infobox is "east", when it would normally be "west" or in your case, "north" instead of "south".
You're going to have to make a decision as to which of these options is best. I've used both methods. In the case of M-115, I followed the signed direction and kept it consistent with the majority of highways signed north–south in the U.S. In the case of M-168, I followed the mileposts, in part, because while MDOT signed it east–west, the highway is physically more north–south, and MDOT press releases treated it in the south-to-north direction. Of course these two examples are diagonals, which muddy the waters a bit. M-62 (Michigan highway) is shaped like a ?, but if you follow the mileposts, you treat it as south-to-north, and then east-to-west. U.S. Route 491 has the oddity in that one of the three states used the opposite direction for its mileposts, so the table counts up, resets to zero, counts up again, and then counts down to zero.
In any case, someone will always argue one of these methods is "wrong", either because you're not consistent with the vast majority of cases, or because you blindly adhered to a rule. Now, I removed that article from my watchlist about over a day ago. You have your options. Good luck. Imzadi 1979  21:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, taking a pause here, I think we're both on the same side, Orygun. We both want to improve content. Two quick points, and I'm done.

  • Between the federal government and the work of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the states have harmonized a lot of divergent practices over the last few decades. Because of that trend, USRD has been able to use simple rules like "write south-to-north, west-to-east" as the primary scheme with "follow the mileposts" as the backup plan when dealing with full circles, diagonals and oddball shapes. Out of over 200 state highways in Michigan, there are just a couple exceptions, meaning the primary rule gives the same result as the backup plan in about 98 or 99% of the cases.
  • As for article assessments, I still think the Oregon project is overly optimistic. I requested reassessment, the second time with a full reasoning. The project has considered those opinions, and rejected them. The best way to resolve that is to improve the article so the assessment is accurate.

State DOTs provide a wealth of information, and if the roadway is notable for being scenic (Brockway Mountain Drive, Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive) or it's been controversial (M-6 (Michigan highway), Interstate 696), there's even more information in travel guides or the news. The only sources needed for a good route description are a good paper map and the satellite view on Google Maps. A travel guide or other sources can help flesh out the RD. Whatever source is used for the length can usually be reused for the mileposts in the junction list. The hardest section of any roadway article to write is usually the history because the reliable sources needed aren't always online. You have a decent history section, so that's not the issue for a change. Get the prose and junction list table in order, add in some good photos with appropriate captions, and that article should sail through GAN. Imzadi 1979  23:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I know I’ve already taken a lot of your time, but I’d appreciate it if you could help me with one ore thing...the highway intersection table. I’ve been trying to figure it out ever since you first mentioned it was core section in highway articles. I’ve copied the table template from several USRD articles you cited, but as soon as I change anything I get error messages or the whole table disappears. Is there trick to working with this template…or a wiki-site that explains how to create/fill the table? I’ll probably figure it out eventually, but any help you can offer would be appreciated.--Orygun (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No need to answer above...I finally broke the code! At top of the table code it said "{{MIint". Thought that was standard title of USRD table and that MI referred to "Mileage Intersection" or something like that. Just realized that all of the example I was working with were from Michigan...and if I replaced MI with OR everything worked. Should be able to incert intersection table in next couple of days. Sorry to bother you with this.--Orygun (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Michigan Place Names

Hi there. I see you've been partially expanding the reference to a bunch of Michigan articles. The link to the book is here. I already added it to Adventure, Michigan. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm using my print copy to fix all of these, but I can insert that URL into the updates going forward. Imzadi 1979  23:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
On second though, Magnolia677, I think that I won't bother with this project. Imzadi 1979  01:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
That's too bad. It's a worthwhile project. I added some "RPs" to this article. It's an easy workaround so you don't have to keep adding the book and new page numbers over and over. Thanks for getting it started. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Copying some links to Google Books adds unneeded crud. Actually, for the four state highway articles that cite Romig, I have the URL linking to the exact page number needed. However, those links are "convenience links", they're not required, and if someone wants, the ISBN alone will allow a reader to find the book in a library or on Google Books. However, since the change to clean up the URL to get rid of the crud was reverted, I'm abandoning any additional work. Imzadi 1979  01:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


OK, let me be a bit more specific regarding the now archived hypothetical which I previously posed. In the article, Concurrency (road), examples of foreign concurrencies are given. They have been tagged with "citation needed". Would a link to GeoHack be sufficient or would a citation to an officially sanctioned atlas be required? Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A link to a map or atlas would be better. Imzadi 1979  14:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't think {{Coord}} was ever meant to replace or be an inline reference. –Fredddie 14:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's a briefly summary of why I think relying on coord/GeoHack is not sufficient.
  • GeoHack links to the various online mapping sources. Many of those are not known for their reliability. OSM can be altered by people just like a wiki, and we don't allow most wikis as sources. Google Maps can also be altered by people, although they have a review process in place, but their cartography gets questioned just often enough in the news media.
  • In an article full of explicit references in the form of footnotes, it would be confusing to people to determine that inline coordinates are references. Really, the links from the coordinates to GeoHack are convenience links, not references.
Imzadi 1979 

OK, then. I one instance, I will try to include a reference from an atlas. This is no easy task since the newest information is no longer distributed in print. --@Efrat (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

London Buses route 414

Imzadi1979, the above article, which you nominated for deletion here (it was redirected), has been recreated. I frankly don't see anything new or compelling or notable about the recreation—indeed, a fair amount of the old material has been reused, as have been all the sources—but I'll leave it to you to pursue this further. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Girard Point Bridge

Really? The Girard Point Bridge is outside of the scope of USRD? It is a bridge used by Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:USRD: "What do we not cover? With some exceptions, we do not maintain: ... Bridges, which are maintained by WP:Bridges". This is not one of those exceptions, which is usually the case when a bridge is the full length of a short state highway number. (Foo Bridge is SR 999, and SR 999 only exists on Foo Bridge. SR 999 redirects to Foo Bridge in that case, and we "claim" for that reason.) This is not that case, so it is outside of our scope. Imzadi 1979  21:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


With this edit, I think we are not respecting the historical facts which is part of an encyclopedia and a relevant point of the US-24. Giving intersections and performance a closer review, we see the free flowing traffic has been eliminated. Check the historic areal photos and see what the change caused on the interstate 94. Taking al closer lock on Taylor, environmental politic is promoted, but the traffic jam outside is a mess and a waste of fuel. We should not illustrate the point of saving energy while more of it is wasted the the same time. If former intelligence is being removed out of our view, we should check if we that old design was not even better. In an encyclopedia, we just show what it is and what it was. And we do not hide relevant facts. --Hans Haase (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A few replies, from most to least important:
  1. The added text is an irrelevant detail in the context of the Route description section. That section deals with the present for the most part, focusing on the landscape and roadway configurations. We may reference past configurations to explain especially odd present setups, but a SPUI is not especially odd. It is less common and worth noting from time to time.
  2. Historical details belong in the history section, in the context of when the configuration was changed. As for your other comments, if I'm understanding you correctly through the language barrier here, I don't agree. The fact that an interchange had a previous configuration than it does now is a matter for the history, but any value judgements about the change like the ones you're apparently espousing above, have to come from published sources. That assumes it's a change worth noting in the context of the rest of the history. We don't mention maintenance projects, and if the change didn't alter the roadway's routing in an appreciable sense, we probably won't mention it anyway.
  3. There is no specific source for the added text. The year given cannot be supported with such a generalized reference. This is a Good Article, and leaving such generalized sources in a GA when the rest are specific both looks wrong and is wrong. It looks like "go do your own research" instead of "the editor who added this did the research".
  4. The added text has language, spelling, and grammar issues.
If it were only the last issue, a simple copy edit would have solved that ("replaceing" → "replacing" "1950ies" →"1950s"). The adjective "stronger" is a value judgement, and we require a source on to use that word, something historical aerial imagery or historical maps cannot source. The other issues though mean this may not be worthy of inclusion in this article's history section. Imzadi 1979  21:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. In the moment I fell we are focussing a WP:POV on the SPUI. WP accepts any reliable secondary source. In map material and aeral photos, G is reliable. "stronger", yes you are right, is a rating word, but sure, the free flowing traffic in the SPUI is on the arterial road only. So I guess we can give a real and true impression to the reader. All the cherries should be picked by the reader, only. ;-) So I expect an article giving me major and unique details beside basic knowledge. This is the double trumpet interchange, the Michigan left, the deconstruction of the free flowing traffic. As a suburb of America's heart of the automotive industry this effects should not to be faded out. Btw. collecting locations of the bery common SPUIs while hiding these of DDIs will not give us a better encyclopedia. I guess we will find a solution. --Hans Haase (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I take it that English is not your native language? I hope that we can figure out what each other means in our discussion.
Anyway, the biggest problem is this: in the Route description section, the fact that an interchange or intersection had a different configuration before is rarely pertinent to the purposes of a good RD section. (emphasis mine) A good RD details the current route, the surrounding landscape and the pertinent current roadway configurations.
A properly cited addition for the reconstruction of the interchange in 2005 would be good to add to the History section, but that addition was very poorly cited (which historical aerials? who published them? etc) Also, a lot of this has a very specialized focus on interchange designs, something that isn't shared by most people. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, and that addition was pretty specialized. Your points about design performance is something for the articles on the interchange/intersection designs, not a general article on a highway. Imzadi 1979  00:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@Hans Haase: with this edit, I have added a appropriately cited addition to the history section of the article, using specific maps and other specific published sources. Imzadi 1979  00:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Good edit! I think this covers it. here's another less reputable and rated review of it. --Hans Haase (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
That is not a reliable source, so using that in the article would endanger the Good Article status currently enjoyed by the article. Imzadi 1979  00:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Have Google Earth providing this. It is clearly written where it is. I wounder about the communication of the MDoT's YouTube upload. It sounds like they are "selling" the solution. --Hans Haase (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Maps are very limited as a source. In revising the content and borrowing it from the Interstate 94 in Michigan article, I dropped the value judgements as unsupportable by the map. Now, I still have research into I-94's history to do, but most of the stuff about this interchange impacts I-94 more that US 24; I-94's carriageways were moved, but US 24 stayed in place. The only impact to US 24 itself was different bridges over the road to carry the freeway, and the addition of an stoplight. The installation of a stoplight would not be something we mention in a history section. There's a lot more impact to I-94, and so more of that stuff will be added to that article someday. Imzadi 1979  01:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we got the point, thank you. Ok, it's 03:24 AM here, see u next time. About the SPUI, see this and on the talk page, last section. --Hans Haase (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wisconsin Highway 141 redirect

I have nominated the redirect for deletion since it's confusing a state highway for a federal route. You can comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 8. Royalbroil 02:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Capitalisation of titles in references

Given your involvement in a recent discussion, you might be interested in WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of article titles in periodicals?. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of U.S. Route 31 in Michigan to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,305 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 23:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Dash in CTH?

Are you sure about this? WISDOT appears to use a space. --NE2 18:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be County XX. –Fredddie 18:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Shrugs* Honestly, the sources I've seen use the hyphen, or they call them "Highway X". We, as a project, really should lay down some consistent style guidelines so that some things from state to state are fairly consistent... but that's a discussion for another day. Imzadi 1979  05:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree that USRD needs to set some consistent guidelines for how things are supposed to be done. It sucks having to look up the abbreviations for most every state (whether spaces, hyphens, and don't get me started about AR). Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

KML box

Go to the article and place the Attached KML in the article. Good places are the "see also" or "external links" sections. --NE2 03:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed that so that it no longer gives advice conflicting with the MOS. Imzadi 1979  03:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: M-185 (Michigan highway)

This is a note to let the main editors of M-185 (Michigan highway) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 12, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 12, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

M-185 is a state trunkline highway in the U.S. state of Michigan that circles Mackinac Island, a popular tourist destination on the Lake Huron side of the Straits of Mackinac. A narrow paved road of 8.004 miles (12.881 km), it offers scenic views of the straits that divide the Upper and the Lower peninsulas of Michigan and Lakes Huron and Michigan. It has no connection to any other Michigan state trunkline highways and is accessible only by passenger ferry. M-185 passes several key sites within Mackinac Island State Park, including Fort Mackinac, Arch Rock, British Landing, and Devil's Kitchen. Outside of the downtown area, it runs between the water's edge and woodlands. Traffic on is by foot, on horse, by horse-drawn vehicle, or by bicycle; motorised vehicles have been banned since the 1890s, and only a few vehicles have been permitted on the island other than emergency vehicles. The highway was built during the first decade of the 20th century by the state and designated as a state highway in 1933. It was paved in the 1950s, and portions were rebuilt to deal with shoreline erosion in the 1980s. Until 2005, it was the only state highway without any automobile accidents. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Comma in M-185

I'm sorry, I had read that as two entities, "Windermere" and "Biddle's Point"; I didn't realize it was "Windermere Point" and "Biddle's Point". Thanks! —LucasThoms 15:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't really like how it's written currently. I think "Windermere Point, or Biddle's Point, ..." would be clearer. –Fredddie 17:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I need some help with what is going on in the road community in wiki.

I dont really know what to do```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airplane54 (talkcontribs) 19:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Airplane54: you're going to need to be more specific so that I can help you. Imzadi 1979  19:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks for helping Airplane54 (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Informal note

Hey, I notice that you have HighBeam access and you seem to have a few topicons. That being said, if you are interested, I've created {{Wikipedia:HighBeam/Topicon}}. No reply to this message is necessary (and I won't see it unless you ping me), just wanted to let you know it was available.   Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: thanks, but I've already been using the HighBeam userbox. Imzadi 1979  00:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Hey Imzadi, I know that you received my email, but were you intending to reply to it? If not, no worries—I'm just checking, as I haven't received anything. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm just catching up after a busy couple of days. Expect a reply before long. Imzadi 1979  02:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that's fine! My fault. If I hadn't watchlisted your talk page awhile back and saw your edit, I wouldn't be worrying. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


Hey Imzadi, just a quick poke about that email. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

State Highway 70 (Uttar Pradesh)

Hi. I see you are highways project member. Perhaps you can act as a second set of eyes in looking over State Highway 70 (Uttar Pradesh) which you moved to its current name. I looked a little more closely at this article because the content doesn't match the title. The title says it is State Highway 70, but the content calls it 70A. There is a reference given, but it does not list a 70A. The reference pdf does list a 70, but it does not match the routing claimed in the article, nor is the route length match. I think this article may be a little loose in its facts. Your thoughts? Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like it could be a hoax. –Fredddie 02:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@Whpq: I wasn't looking at content, just the name. The various Indian state highways are named "State Highway X (State)", yet editors create them in the format "<State> State Highway X", which makes a mess of the various categories. When I see them appear on the new article listing, I move them and tag them. That is is all. Imzadi 1979  02:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It might be a hoax, or it might be badly referenced personal knowledge. -- Whpq (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


The junction of US-23 and River Road is physically in Oscoda Township. The Oscoda Township hall is less than a block from the intersection. The township line runs across Huron Street a couple blocks south. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Proof on Google Maps that the US-23/River Road junction is physically in Oscoda Township. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @TenPoundHammer: you'll notice that I reverted myself and corrected the milepost from an Au Sable location (Mill Street, which lines up with River Road) to River Road in Oscoda. Imzadi 1979  22:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Route 24 in Michigan

Can you please add the Ecorse Road exit south of I-94? I don't know how to figure out the exact mileage for the exit. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, is there a precedent for including interchanges that no longer exist? I see at least two denoted on I-94 in Michigan, and I can think of three more (Carpenter Road in Ann Arbor, Grove Street in Ypsilanti, and Northline Road in Romulus). Similarly, I-75 north of Flint had an exit with Coldwater Road that was obliterated in the 70s. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I will look into that tomorrow. As for former interchanges, yes otherwise the |type=closed feature would not be present. Mileposts for all state highways can be determined using the Physical Reference Finder Application linked in the footnotes. Once there, the Identify tool will allow someone to determine the Control Section and the mileposts for a specific roadway segment. For exit list purposes, we've measured the MP where the roadway crosses on the northbound or eastbound carriageway, using a range where necessary. Because MDOT resets the mileposts internally at county lines, some arithmetic is required to calculate the statewide mileposts used in the articles. Imzadi 1979  06:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
May as well tell him how to program a robot! We're lucky to have online access to highway maintenance logs... suffice to say it seems as though they hired someone to specifically make them more difficult to interpret. In California, that person is a veteran. - Floydian τ ¢ 07:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Presumably a reference would be required for the defunct exits, such as an old road map. The Northline Road exit would probably require an estimate, since the eastbound roadway was greatly altered in the process before, after. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 14:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Floydian:: the PRFA is an online mapping tool that gives detailed control section or physical reference information for every roadway in the state of Michigan. A little simple arithmetic is required because control sections terminate at the county lines, but otherwise unless a road is completely obliterated, it shows up on the map.
@TenPoundHammer: yes, a reference for the old exits would be needed, probably to cite the years/dates they were removed in the notes, but unless the cross road was completely removed, it will still appear in MDOT's Physical Reference Finder Application. If there is still some kind of physical evidence of the cross road, the PRFA can show the satellite view, and we can click on the appropriate point to get a milepost measurement. Imzadi 1979  04:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, can you help me figure it out? I don't know what all the numbers mean. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's concentrate the lesson here to the question "how do I determine a milepost for a junction/interchange that needs to be added in the middle of a junction/exit list?" For this example, let's assume we were going to add the CR 601 junction to M-95's junction list just south of the US 41/M-28 junction west of Ishpeming in Marquette County.

  1. Load and click on "Base map" in the "Map Search" options. This will take you to the main Physical Reference Finder Application map with the entire state visible.
  2. Above the map is a tool bar. Click on the "Zoom in" tool and then drag a selection box over the map. For our example, drag a box over Marquette County, and repeat as necessary to get the area of the US 41/M-28 and M-95 junction relatively zoomed in.
  3. Once the map is zoomed in, click the "Identify" tool and then select "PR/CS" from the little menu that appears. This will give you Physical Reference and Control Section information about a road.
  4. Click on M-95 near the terminus north of the crossing with County Road FA. (That road doesn't exist anymore, but it's still on the map for some reason.) The following information will popup:
    PR: 1560510
    Road Name: M 95
    MP: 19.743
    BMP: 19.589
    EMP: 19.8
    CS: 52011
    CS Path: 1
    CS MP: 19.743
    CS BMP: 19.589001
    CS EMP: 19.799999
  5. The MP (milepost) above will probably be different than what you get because it is the milepost for the point where I clicked the roadway segment. The BMP is the beginning milepost for the segment and the EMP is the ending milepost. BMPs are shown graphically on the map with a blue circle, and EMPs are shown with a red square. The application drops trailing zeros, so the EMP is really "19.800". The CS stuff isn't needed at al.
  6. OK, since the red square for the EMP is at the junction with US 41/M-28, we know that the milepost there is 19.800, based on county-wide mileage.
  7. Next, click on the segment of M-95 just north of the CR 601 junction. The blue circle should appear at the CR 601 junction, and so the BMP for that junction is what we are interested in. That number is "BMP: 19.091".
  8. So do the math quick, and you'd find that CR 601 is 19.800 − 19.091 = 0.709 miles south of the US 41/M-28 junction.
  9. Look on the junction list in the M-95 article, and you'll see that the US 41/M-28 junction has a state-wide milepost of 55.162. So if we subtract our value from the last step, the CR 601 junction would have a state-wide milepost of 55.162 − 0.709 = 54.453 miles.
  10. The map indicates municipal and county boundaries, and since there isn't one between the two junctions, we know that M-95 intersects CR 601 in Humboldt Township, the same as it does with US 41/M-28.

Some general notes on the PRFA tool:

  • Mileposts reset at county lines. To do or redo all of the MPs for an article, you'll have to start at the western or southern terminus and determine the MP of the first county line. (The map uses boundaries to terminate segments just like intersections.) Then you'd have to add the first county's mileage to all of the mileposts in a second county. If the highway crosses into a third county, you'll have to add the total mileage from the first two counties together to the MPs for junctions in the third, and so on and so forth.
  • Mileposts once in a while reset in the middle of a county. I don't know why, but sometimes they do. If that happens, you'll need to find the reset point and treat it like a county line.
  • Mileposts are given for the dominant highway designation in a concurrency, so you'll need to do the math accordingly to adjust. Sometimes you'll run into a variation on the wrong-way concurrency: US 41 NB is M-28 WB, so the internal MPs run the wrong way on that concurrency for M-28. That means a lot of subtraction and addition to "flip" the mileposts around.

If you have any questions, just let me know. I've been using this mapping tool now for several years, and I'm sure I've skimmed over something in this lesson. Imzadi 1979  22:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Whoa, that sounds insanely complicated, especially if you suck at math like I do. Is there a method that doesn't require 14 hours worth of dicking around with numbers? I'd really appreciate if you could do it for me because I can't make heads or tails of your instructions. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That's the only method I've found, which is to click on the segments and do the arithmetic. There is supposed to be a way to export an Excel spreadsheet for a single highway designation that would list the cumulative mileage, but I've never had any success with it. Imzadi 1979  21:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, if you want to do it, go ahead. As far as I know, only Carpenter Road in Ann Arbor, Prospect Street in Ypsi, and Northline Road in Romulus are the only removed exits. You can consult Historic Aerials to see the old configs. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: I plan on taking Interstate 69 in Michigan to FAC later this week, and I'd like to get back into working on the history section on Interstate 94 in Michigan if a certain Port Huron-connected editor will abide by an {{inuse}} tag this time unlike a year ago. There are only about 20 articles left in the state highway system to take to GAN, so as those are done and three more of the lists are taken to FLC, I can start the process to nominating the various subtopics at User:Imzadi1979/Sandbox2. Anyway, if you have any work you wanted to do on I-69, it would be appreciated if you did so sooner rather than later. Imzadi 1979  22:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I can't think of anything more I'd like to do on the I-69 article. I-94 still needs a lot of work though. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, can you please add the mileage for the US-24/Ecorse Road exit? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Scenic Byway Barnstar

Thanks for helping me understand the crazy situation with national byways. It was a hard concept for me to understand that there wouldn't be one current, good and reliable site of nationally designate byways.

I apologize for being slow on the uptake and not quite getting your points! Your explanation at the end helped a lot. CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Request of help

I proudly request for help with the discussion with New Hampshire Highway System. It would seem better to have another editor to help in the discussion. Only 1 other editor is in the discussion now, and it would be a big help. Thanks! Aiden2121 (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Imzadi1979/Archive 5".