Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Highways page.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8|
Centralized discussion for the Highways WikiProject
Task force archives: Africa: 1 • Asia: 1 • Europe: 1 • Latin America: 1 • Oceania 1 • United Kingdom 1 · 2
|WikiProject Highways||(Rated Project-class)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Length citations in road infoboxesEdit
Coming here from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 82/archive1 - it appears that WP:INFOBOXCITE now discourages citing facts in infoboxes when the same information is repeated in the article. Is this something we should consider? It would be a change across a lot of articles that are already FA/A/GA, for example. --Rschen7754 04:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've never seen a problem with citations in the infobox, or the lead for that matter. Generally we cite the first occurrence of a fact so if the first occurrence is the infobox, why not cite it there? It does seem inconsistent if we cite some figures in the infobox and not others. either way, I don't see that it would be necessary to change existing articles in bulk. Change them as they are noticed or implement for new articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- This is nothing more than being consistent with the policy that citations are not usually required in the lead, as that info is in the body of the article too. For the articles I've worked on, the source used for the length is also usually used in the junctions list. So the only scenario I can see where this is a problem is where the citation for the length in the infobox is unique to the citations for the length in the junctions list. That's a small number of articles, usually national articles, and as AusssieLegend says can be handled on a case by case basis. Dave (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It's been about 2 weeks since I got a response on this article's PR and the discussion I tried to open at the Canada Roads Project is eligible for archive. I would like some opinions on this article, as 400-series highways risks being demoted from good topic status (The grace period ended on March 9th (15 days ago)).
Is the article B-class yet? If yes, would this have a good chance at GAN? Is there any need for major improvement at this time?
I know Floydian (who appears to be inactive at this time) said some things here. A ribbon-cutting ceremony was mentioned, but I didn't find a reliable source that more than passively mentioned it. Just a tweet with a picture of said ceremony. If the article appears to have a good chance at GAN, you may close the PR and mention it here.
Thanks, Username6892 21:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)