Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 10

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Moabdave in topic New Jersey County Route titles
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Major junctions debate yet again

Latest comment: 1 year ago35 comments10 people in discussion

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 9#Major junctions debate, we reached a consensus that roads infoboxes should contain no more than the ten most important junctions. I think we now need to discuss whether it is appropriate to have a massive table of junctions, such as that added by Matthewshill at A5 road (Great Britain)#Junctions list. To me, this is more SabreRoads-style obsessive detail with no encyclopedic value whatever. Is there any credible case to retain it? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

No, none. Such lists adds nothing of any encyclopaedic value. I would constrain the junctions information to that that can easily be included within a reasonably sized infobox,. This information does not bear repetition and certainly not a great expansion as a major part of an article. We should encourage editors with this level of interest in the minutiae of road to put it to good use in applications such as OpenStreetMap  Velella  Velella Talk   11:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
@Velella: You do realize that thousands of road articles, including several featured articles and good articles, have these? And that there is a specific guideline for how these are formatted? --Rschen7754 14:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Rschen7754 - I do, and I have seen them and have been greatly dismayed. Standards change and improve, guidelines may be updated, nothing is set in stone, but these great walls of text can be of very little use to anyone other than their creator.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I will point out that is your opinion and certainly not that of this WikiProject (of which you are not listed as a member). Junction lists are a part of our assessment scale, underscoring their importance to most articles (where they would be applicable). Why? This provides information about where the route actually goes in a more easily accessible format. I do not see it any differently than similar tables for trains. --Rschen7754 15:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
They appear to be reflecting the community consensus, bringing up similar tables for trains (a wikiproject with the same ownership issues as this one) does not help your argument. Note that the assessment standard is "A list of the road's junctions and landmarks, if appropriate." so they are not required contrary to what you just said. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
That is a novel interpretation of that, those exceptions only apply to articles that fall under this WikiProject that are not roads (such as lists, articles on interchanges and laws). --Rschen7754 15:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The interpretation you appear to be presenting is that it allows WP:OR, which is certainly a novel one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Unless we specifically have a source which says which of the intersections are major (if any) that is original analysis which is prohibited under the WP:OR policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
There are set criteria that determine what is "major". We make this value judgment every day in every article. I am sure that you can find many articles about trivial things every world leader has done, but we make a value judgment as to what is worth including or not. --Rschen7754 15:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Please present those criteria. If its not stated by a WP:RS then there is no possibility to make a judgement for inclusion. We can only judge to exclude material that is covered by WP:RS, we can not judge to include material which isn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The formal criteria are at WP:RJL and WP:USRD/STDS, but it boils down to this: 1) is this an exit, or 2) is this a junction with a road that is numbered and/or has an article? Both of which are objective. (Quite frankly, the junctions list in the infobox is more subjective and I would rather have gotten rid of it, but I lost that debate).
And you haven't answered my question about value judgments. Yesterday one of the most powerful world leaders pardoned two living beings. Why don't we include that in his article? (The question is rhetorical). --Rschen7754 15:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I did answer your question... We can make a value judgement to not include something which has been published in a WP:RS but we can not make a value judgement to iclude something which has not been published in a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Government documents and Rand McNally are reliable sources (the latter of which you have admitted yourself). So we are back to the original question. --Rschen7754 15:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
And those sources say which junctions are major? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Those sources indicate #1 or #2, which is the value judgment that we have made. --Rschen7754 15:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Not good enough, thats WP:OR. The source actually has to say it. Remember that OR "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The junction table is fine to have in road articles as it provides a road’s junctions along with their locations and mileposts in an easy-to-read format. This is similar to how articles about train lines have a list of stations. We have a section of the Manual of Style, MOS:RJL, that governs how these sections should be set up and WikiProjects have their own standards for individual countries, such as WP:USRD/STDS, that handle the more specific details for a country. The table is not meant to include every junction but only the ones with the most important roads, which varies by country. If there are concerns about using the term “major” to refer to the junctions, then we should favor using “Junction list” or “Exit list” for the headings. Dough4872 16:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion, a “Junction list” or “Exit list” would not require WP:OR as the current one does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I might agree with you that the "10 most major" junctions in the infobox should go. I spend more of my time fixing malformed and vandalism edits about that portion of the infobox than any other roads article maintenance task. I myself have proposed getting rid of the major junctions in the infobox for that reason alone.

However, what is not valid is to accuse the USRD project of any bad behavior that is different from anybody else by drawing a line as to what is considered major and what isn't. This is a value judgement that has to be made for virtually every article on Wikipedia. And this argument borders on the absurd. Let's pick some examples that are as far away from roads as I can find to illustrate the point:

  • The article for the movie Black Panther: Wakanda Forever lists 13 actors as "staring" in the infobox. There were at least a thousand actors who were paid to appear in that movie, ranging from the people who were paid to sit quietly as bus passengers in one 10 second scene, to the actors who spoke in every scene, and every shade of gray between those two extremes. How is that any different than what the USRD project has done? Where is the line drawn as to who qualifies as a star and who is just an actor or extra? Reliable sources only please, none of this project specific crap as to who is a star and who isn't. ;). OK sarcasm aside, the answer is someone had to draw an arbitrary line somewhere as you can't fit 1000 actors into an infobox.
  • The article for Edgar Allan Poe has a section titled "selected works". Who decided which of his works were worthy of inclusion and which weren't? Reliable sources only please for the critera of "selected".
  • The article for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lists 20 political positions, including, interestingly enough, her position on Puerto Rico (as a level 3 heading) and China (as a level 4 heading). Why only 20 positions? I'm sure she's made political statements on a lot more than 20 topics. Why isn't her position on Russia listed? I'm sure she has one. Yet again, some wikipedia article and/or project used their own criteria to decide that her position on Puerto Rico should be elevated above her position on all other places, and that her position on Isreal and China were worth mentioning but not her position on Russia.
  • About half the text for the article for LGBT is discussing the disagreement about who qualifies for inclusion in the group and which acronym should be used for the group, and is it really even a unified group at all. But you wouldn't know that from the infobox. Someone made an arbitrary judgement that only 5 subtopics should be linked in the infobox for the the history of the movement. How were those 5 topics selected, and who decided that the Stonewall riots were more notable than say the White Night Riots?

So we're exercising more control over the articles than anybody else? Please, this is something every wikipedian does who works on articles, including you. Can we just argue the merits of the major junctions section and the stripped down version in the infobox? without the absurd argument that it is a crime to draw a line as to what is the criteria for major/selected/starring? Dave (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You're missing the key point... We can choose not to include something which has been published in a WP:RS, we can not choose to include something which has not been published in a WP:RS. We have no sources which say that these intersections are major, we presumably to have sources which say who starred in Wakanda Forever, but if we don't then yes that is OR. The rest of the examples are not comparables per the key point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This is all semantics. Major=subset selected from the set of all. You are inferring that it implies significance when in 95% of cases it is simply the intersections where the crossroad has an article on Wikipedia. Next you'll tell us that we need a source to qualify if it's an intersection or a junction. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I am missing the key point. Whenever there is a list of "major" or "selected" or "notable" items there is a line drawn as to what merits inclusion and what doesn't in that list. (And regard to movies, "starring" is the same as a major/selected actor). That line is ultimately arbitrary. Even if a reliable source is used to draw that line, that criteria ultimately came from someone's opinion. If we're lucky, enough people have agreed with that person's opinion to call it a consensus. To go back to the main point, I'm more than willing to argue the merits of the junctions list, weather it should exist at all, and if it should exist what are the criteria for inclusion. So let's argue that, without the accusations of bad faith on any specific wiki-project for "drawing a line of inclusion", which is exactly what ever other article writing wikipedian has had to do. Dave (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of tables listing junctions. These aid navigation in roads articles as folks can easily follow links to intersecting roads. As mentioned above they are comparable to a list of railway stations and rail junctions on a railway line article. Garuda3 (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this back to a productive discussion. Regarding the specific example, A5 road (Great Britain), it looks fairly typical to me. It's certainly not the longest one in Wikipedia. So to me this is really a discussion about their value in general. I agree the table adds value as a quick cross reference guide, not only to other roads but cities, jurisdictions and landmarks. Dave (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't we just all contribute to a major cleaning up task, so that we (hopefully) never have to talk abiut this subject for a long time? Roads4117 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:HWY does not mandate the specific header text used for the junction list table. (WP:USRD/STDS does allow for "Major intersections" but also "Junction list" or "Exit list"). I personally am not convinced by the OR concerns of using "Major intersections" but if it would allay the concerns of others I would support a proposal to standardize on something else. --Rschen7754 04:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we have better options than "major junctions" for a title. Let's decide on a better title and code up a bot or AWB script to do the bulk change. In addition to the option Rschen7754 mentions above, there is my point above that "Selected" (as in Selected works) is commonly used throughout Wikipedia for similar lists and tables for cases where a comprehensive list would be impractical. So far the word "Selected" has not faced the same criticism as "major". (Even though I don't see a significant difference between elevating the status of few out of many with "selected" verses "major" or "notable" or "featured"). However, let's not kid ourselves, some of the comments above hint there are bigger objectives than improvement of table titles in play, given the value of the tables themselves were also questioned.Dave (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
@Dave I do agree about maybe getting a bot, and a new name, rather than 'major junctions'. If any of you have a new name suggestion to share with us then please put it below. :-) Roads4117 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC) (although this was updated at 19:46utc on Wednesday, 7 December 2022)
Also, I might fix some articles now :). Roads4117 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I would just like to say sorry about the running commentary I am doing on here. I just though it would be useful for editors to see so then they can know which pages they can improve on, by me adding a one or two sentence description of what could be done to improve that article's infobox if an editor wanted to etc. I just thought that if everybody would come together and do a manual clean-up session and correspond with each other over who is doing what articles (I did mention this a bit further up), rather than programming a bot to do something which can be done manually. I hope that explains where I'm coming from with this, and I will continue to do it if that is ok with you and the other editors. Roads4117 (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC) (btw this was my message on Rschen7754's User talk page, with a few changes)
Much of what is in the collapsed section should probably be on the individual talk pages.
In any case, I'll just note that Interstate 90, at 3,021.22 miles (4,862.18 km) in length has just 10 junctions listed in its infobox. Its individual subarticles have varying numbers: Washington 297.51 miles (478.80 km), 6; Idaho 73.89 miles (118.91 km), 5; Montana 552.46 miles (889.10 km), 10; etc. In no case do they go over 10 junctions. In short, it's an exercise in editorial judgement what to include or exclude, weighing factors like geographic distribution, classification of highway types, etc. The upper bound may be 10, but that doesn't mean we'd always list 10 either; M-6 (Michigan highway) is 19.70 miles (31.70 km) and has just two junctions listed in its infobox, i.e. both of the state highways it intersects. Imzadi 1979 → 17:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Please also note that I have/am going to put the following messages on their designated talk pages. Roads4117 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I should have also mentioned that something else to consider is the impact the number of junctions has on the overall infobox size compared to the length of the lead (and the table of contents). On my screen, my window width is set to approximate a printed sheet of paper in the original Vector skin. (The newer Vector skin has similar line width limits built in.) From a page layout/design background, an article looks just a bit more polished when such things can be balanced. Of course we display on a variety of screen types, desktop and mobile, so this isn't always going to work, but the core idea holds: you don't want a long infobox with a short lead and vice versa. Imzadi 1979 → 17:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Imzadi1979, how are you? I just saw your message you sent about how major junctions in infoboxes must not go over 10. I do agree with you, although I don't know which roads to remove after I have narrowed it down to twelve or thirteen. Me and John Maynard Friedman had a conversation about this on Tuesday or Wednesday last week, and they said that if it is a long road, for example 200 or 300 miles long (which is pretty long for UK roads, but very short for USA roads) that even after you cut back all of the road's except the one or two-digit primary roads, you are still left with 12-14, and from there it is hard to know which roads are more important than others. If you want I can send though that conversation to your talk page or even here so you can have a look at it. Although if you would like to help me by going through the articles I have already done (UK roads A2 - A28, not including Isle of Man or Northern Ireland) and sorting out which roads are important and which ones aren't important then please feel free to but no pressure. Also I am going to add the messages below onto the designated talk pages, maybe not today as it is starting to get a little late here now, but probably tomorrow or Friday. When I do add them though, I am going to still keep them here, like I said on User:Rschen7754's user talk page, as more editors are likely to see it here then on that talk page. I see what you mean with the thing to do with the table of contents, if the infobox is longer than the table of contents then it makes the article look scrappy and not good at all. At the same time, for some road articles the contents is very short as the editor who made it hasn't added any subheadings or headings etc, so sometimes you may just see references, external links and see also in the contents like I did a few months ago at A4146 road although at the same time as Ritchie333 said, articles like the M25 are prone to protests and road accidents, and the A303 has the never-ending Stonehenge tunnel thing, therefore the contents page for those articles are quite long. Sorry f9r sending a really long message back to you - I just wanted to get this across. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Header type function

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Hello.

I was wondering if it was just me or an all round thing that many people have noticed, but does the header_type function still work? I have just had a look at a few articles which had the header type function on minor, until now they are on major, even though the function is still in the infobox.  

I would appreciate your help.

Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a better question for Template talk:Infobox road. I was doing some things the other day, but I didn't touch |header_type=minor. Can you provide some articles that this is affecting? –Fredddie™ 14:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Fredddie, some articles which have this problem are A4200 road, A2216 road, A215 road (an article which has GA status) and A183 road (England). Those are just a few of them, however there are many more. I will ask the Template talk now. Roads4117 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@Roads4117 I will look at it when I have some time. Right now, I don't. This is a minor style detail in the grand scheme of things, so it's a low priority for me. –Fredddie™ 21:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
@Fredddie Thank you so much for your help. Roads4117 (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@Fredddie FYI, I have just noticed that this is now on all minor roads in the UK. Roads4117 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Fredddie, I was just wondering if you knew anything more about the infobox glitch I told you about two weeks ago, or if you are still extremely busy with other edits? An answer would be much appreciated. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fredddie:, was just wondering if you have any news about the header type function not working? I realise that you are busy, however you haven't replied to me for almost 5 weeks. Thanks :-) Roads4117 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Will re-ask Template talk: Infobox road. Roads4117 (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I see somebody has changed it. Thank you. Roads4117 (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Does the A33 meet the M3?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does the A33 meet the M3? Personally I think that it doesn't, because it meets the A27 about 200 yards before the roundabout with the A33. Please tell me your views on the article talk page here, as I would be interested. Thank you. Roads4117 (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Cape to Cairo Road

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, People.

We have two articles here, namely the Cape to Cairo Road & the Cairo–Cape Town Highway. Both routes connect Cairo with Cape Town.

Notice that everything written in the Cairo–Cape Town Highway article, except for the "Major Junctions" under the "Infobox", is also found in the Cape to Cairo Road article.

You'll notice that there are only three differences between the two routes, as stated here.

So, in your opinion, is it necessary for there to be two separate articles? GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't even think you need to discuss this, just be bold, merge the articles, and redirect one to the other. Dave (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Dave on this - merge the two of them together, and redirect one to the other. Roads4117 (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
@Moabdave, Well, there's currently a "discussion" on the Cape to Cairo Road talk page about re-merging the two articles. It was started just over half-a-year ago by User:Amakuru.
Well, in the past, the Cape to Cairo Road article was the one with information while the Cairo–Cape Town Highway article was a redirect. Then, a certain user decided to make the latter its own article, probably because he thinks each & every one of the Trans-African Highway network routes should have its own article on Wikipedia.
Notice that from the two titles, the first one represents an "old colonial route" while the latter represents a "current United Nations & African Union designated route". Now, there's an issue of how the notes are to be arranged in whichever article, describing both the "old colonial route" & the "current UN & AU designated route". (i.e. which one should be mentioned first?)
While I support the idea of returning things back to "the way they were" (i.e. Cairo–Cape Town Highway redirects to Cape to Cairo Road) (the page starts by talking about the "old colonial route" & then later mentions the "UN & AU designated route") (basically how the Cape to Cairo Road article is at the moment), some editors believe that it should be "the other way around" (i.e. Cape to Cairo Road redirects to Cairo–Cape Town Highway) (the article is to be mainly about the "UN & AU designated route" & then the "old colonial route" is to be mentioned in some sort of "History" section).
So, at the moment, these two routes are the options available & I am trying to see which one would be the best to take. To Be Honest, very-few Wikipedians have participated in that talk page discussion, that's if they even know that one has been started (even though it is listed on "all article alerts"). I am not sure how long it will be until somebody decides to "close that discussion" but anybody who checks out either article will see at the top that there's a merger-discussion happening. GeographicAccountant (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
If a discussion is now dormant with no obvious concensus, be bold and take the lead. In general I don't like seeing 2 Wikipedia articles that are mostly redundant with each other. Depending on the circumstances I normally advocate for a merge, and will sometimes just merge them myself without a discussion. That's especially when both articles are obviously about the same thing. It sounds to me like that's the case here. There are some cases where 2 mostly redundant articles are about separate, but closely related things. In that case I still may argue for a combined article about both topics if it's clear that most sources treat the two objects as the same thing and it would be nearly impossible to have two articles that weren't mostly redundant with each other. There are a select few cases where I have advocated for separate articles even when articles are partially redundant. An example is where the primary colloquial usage of a name is not technically accurate, but there is an accurate use for that name. I don't see any evidence of that being the case here. Dave (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Malaysian Expressway System

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recent edits by an IP (180.75.159.111) has introduced errors (search for "error") at List of expressways and highways in Malaysia and Malaysian Expressway System. Would someone please investigate. Johnuniq (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong Roads

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I believe that the HWY WikiProject needs to simplify its structure during this time in order to be a stronger project.

The Hong Kong subproject has long been tagged as inactive and I am concerned that it being so means that anyone interested in working on those articles will not be connected to the greater HWY community. I propose that it be made a task force of HWY and the talk page be redirected here, with the archives saved.

I am concerned about the activity levels of the discussion pages of both Canada and India but don't see a need to propose something similar at this time. --Rschen7754 07:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I would support that, or just upmerge it into the Asia TF. Imzadi 1979 → 03:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The initial moves have been   Done but I am sure there is a lot of cleanup that has to still be done. --Rschen7754 04:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

A9 road (Scotland)

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In A9 road (Scotland)#Junction list, if the city1 field is populated with Perth, it links to the city in Australia, not the Scottish city. If corrected to Perth, it shows as Perth|Perth. Presumably an override needs to be included in wherever this is being fed from. Any ideas as to where? Tokoleuire (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a couple of ways to override the city parameter when it misbehaves. |location1= is one, |areadab1= is another. Both are documented at Template:Jct. Cheers, Dave (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on usage of Maps and Charts in Wikipedia articles

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have started a RFC at WP:VPP asking for clarification of the OR policy regarding the use of maps and charts as sources in Wikipedia articles. I'm posting here as this project would likely be among the most affected. Dave (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources. --Rschen7754 03:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Questions on notability have been added to the RFC. --Rschen7754 06:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

User:DGG/New York – Chicago Toll Road system

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

User:DGG has passed away, but has left a draft in progress at User:DGG/New York – Chicago Toll Road system, which may be salvageable by this project. BD2412 T 03:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Epicgenius has written a lot of New York related transport and architecture articles, so he might be able to take it on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping Ritchie333. Although I am indeed interested in roads, I haven't really written many articles about them. This would interest WT:USRD, though, so I can crosspost this there. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Thanks, please do. DGG was a great contributor, and it would be heartening to see his potentially useful work finished. BD2412 T 13:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed refactoring of geographic feature notability

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We are discussing a proposal to refactor the guidelines for geographic feature notability. Please feel free to join in the discussion of this proposal. — hike395 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I notice that this change was made by a single editor apparently without discussion with the WikiProject. Given the extremely high level of support for project-independent quality assessments from the general community, I would expect to see a similarly strong local consensus not to implement it for individual projects. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:HWY, and its subprojects, have used a custom assessment scheme for several years. The change is just in keeping with that. Imzadi 1979 → 14:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
It seems that a group of a few editors have decided that they want to make assessments universal, and that WikiProjects (not only MILHIST, but WP:HWY and all subprojects) who disagree with these universal assessments will be steamrolled into submission, now or in the future. [1] I guess I was right. --Rschen7754 00:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do is just ignore it and write more content. :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Problems with Irish cross-border roads

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Can I get a second opinion on something? I've been expanding a few major concession roads across the Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border. As they're in separate countries, they have separate road classifications, but because they derive from a single road, and the border was formed from historic county boundaries that were never intended to be an international frontier, they're hard to separate. In particular, A3 road (Northern Ireland) and N54 road (Ireland) are basically different parts of the same road from Clones to Cavan, which is notorious for crossing to and from the North to the Republic again and again, and there's loads of history to write about, such as the road being blocked during the Irish War of Independence, side roads being blown up by the British Army during the Troubles, or the central, isolated bit of County Monaghan becoming an "untouchable" rubbish dump, and the parts in County Fermanagh being populated by cut-price liquor and fireworks stores. It doesn't really make sense to put all that in two separate articles.

A search on sources show a possible WP:COMMONNAME is Clones to Cavan Road which I can see in sources here, here, here. here and here, from a quick search. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Well legally and functionally they're two separate roads that happen to join with each other. As a result I'd treat them as separate entities on each side of the border. Canterbury Tail talk 01:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Curiously enough, there is a similar debate happening at Talk:U.S. Route 395, largely due to the fact there is a short connector in Canada with the same number. I don't have strong opinions either way, but have generally found that when you you try to create one highway article that is mantained by 2 different transportation agencies, it's hard as each one has different data they publish, and formats the data differently, so it's hard to have a consistent article that doesn't read like 2 articles glued together. However, I have supported a few such merges to create combined articles in the past, usually because one of the 2 is extremely short, and not a lot of info is available and would likely be a permastub, or nominated at AFD if left as a stand alone article. Dave (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Watling Street is somewhat similar. The article describes a route, which has various designations along the way. There are separate articles about the major designations (like A2 and A5) but not for sections bypassed in modern times. Your suggestion (or Clones– Monaghan road) makes a lot of sense. Surely it is the route that is notable, not its transient designations.
But anything to do with that part of the world is contentious and there are "unknown unknowns" for anyone not deeply familiar with the local nuances. It would be wise to invite comment from the relevant wikiprojects. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland of this discussion. I think the principal difference between the Clones-Cavan Road and the route 395 is, as Dave suggests, the latter is treated as separate entities in the respective sources, and the route as a whole crosses the border once, not repeatedly back and forth. It's also reasonable to say that the US-Canadian border is nowhere near as politically sensitive as the UK-ROI border (you can cross it without realising). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ritchie333:: I suggest that if you create an article called Clones to Cavan Road (or whatever) that you state in the lead paragraph that "Following the Partition of Ireland in 1921 the section of the road in the Republic of Ireland was designated as the N54 road and the section in Northern Ireland was designated as the A3 road."


Then in both of those articles, insert a section heading called something like Crime on the N54 road (or Cross-border problems on the N64 road, or whatever) and Crime on the A4 road (or whatever), respectively.


Below that heading, add:
Main article: Clones to Cavan Road
The code for that is:
{{Main|Clones to Cavan Road}}


You could leave it at that or add a brief common summary of the Clones to Cavan Road article to both of the existing articles, below your new section heading.
Now, the three articles point to each other in a theoretically fair manner and should minimise the risk of unintended provocation concerning a potentially politically-delicate article. But, of course, unforeseen resentment is crowd sourced as easily as encyclopaedia building! O'Dea (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Asin–Nangalisan–San Pascual Road#Requested move 5 May 2023

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Asin–Nangalisan–San Pascual Road#Requested move 5 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Motorway junction tables

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just want to make sure I haven't missed something. I just revered an edit (diff), which removed the entire junction table from a motorway article. Was I right to revert? 10mmsocket (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Google Maps at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
 

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Google Maps that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Roads4117 (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Where? I cannot see anything there. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@ 10mmsocket Should work now :) Roads4117 (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
In short, you can use Google Maps for citing names of places (street names, towns/villages, shops etc.), and geographical coordinates, however, where possible, it should not be used for boundary lines. You can also have a read of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources for more information etc. Roads4117 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

New drafts

Latest comment: 7 months ago31 comments1 person in discussion

Draft:A2213 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A2213 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A2212 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A2212 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A109 road (England)

 

There is a new page at Draft:A109 road (England), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A110 road (England)

 

There is a new page at Draft:A110 road (England), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A111 road (England)

 

There is a new page at Draft:A111 road (England), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A112 road (England)

 

There is a new page at Draft:A112 road (England), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A124 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A124 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A129 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A129 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A134 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A129 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A157 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A157 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A159 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A159 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A164 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A164 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A177 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A177 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A182 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A182 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A189 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A189 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A1066 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A1066 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A1151 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A1151 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A1200 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A1200 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A1260 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A1200 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A213 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A213 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A222 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A222 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A225 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A225 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A230 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A230 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A235 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A235 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A236 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A236 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A237 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A237 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A2217 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A2217 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A346 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A346 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A3400 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A3400 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A425 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A425 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A435 road

 

There is a new page at Draft:A435 road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The Center Line: Fall 2023

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Features

• A New Future for Road Articles Online

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

Notice

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A merge proposal has been posted at Talk:Pan-American Highway#Merge proposal. - wolf 09:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Foix Tunnel - France

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi - today I updated this article with a reference and de-orphaned. Asking for expert help here to check if what I did is correct? Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Cologne Beltway

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, I was looking at Cologne Beltway which uses the Wikipedia:Autobahn infobox template style of "infobox". Is that really the style used for such things or do we have a more common template for this? Gonnym (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym: The preferred infobox is {{Infobox road}} with the junctions in a separate template (governed by MOS:RJL, but Europe does it differently). SounderBruce 18:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Problem with Croatian highway infobox maps

Latest comment: 5 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

If you look at D1 road (Croatia), D2 road (Croatia) or D9 road (Croatia) (or D3, or D5…), their maps all show the same, seemingly random collection of highway segments instead of the actual route of the highway concerned. They are custom maps based on OpenStreetMap relations, so I guess the problem is there somewhere, but I don't know how to fix it. Could anyone please help, or at least point me in the right direction? Waltham, The Duke of 17:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

For D1 road (Croatia), it looks from the source that {{Highway system OSM map}} with the parameter highway_system_qid = Q1264804 is generating that. That template doesn't seem to be well documented, only mentioning the P16 property. We can see a wikidata Qnumber as the parameter, so while the default https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q741016 is otherwise associated with that article, this takes https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1264804 which is "list of state roads in Croatia". The confusing part is that there's no extra map in the P16 properties there, and the regular links to OSM show normal maps...? Let's ping the people who edited that template and the infobox, Underlying lk and MSG17 - please help. --Joy (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Figured out the issue. Q2947924 is the wikidata item for the network itself (and will render by default if the param isn't explicitly stated) while Q1264804 is for the Wiki article listing the roads in the system. If we can remove that param variable from all pages then it would be fixed (see what I did on D1 and D2). MSG17 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Fixed for all affected pages. MSG17 (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Good job! Much obliged. Waltham, The Duke of 14:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Happy to see that the removal of a bit of opaque syntax makes things better, though it would be nice if we had a more coherent bit of explanation and documentation about how it actually works. --Joy (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of A2199 road for deletion

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A2199 road, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2199 road (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thank you. Roads4117 (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This page has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Roads4117 (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:AARoads

Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Since that wiki is fairly active, I made this template. Any contributions there that would be helpful on WP can be added with this template. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the point, considering most of AARoads Wiki actually incorporates content from enwiki at this point. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Don't we have a standing consensus that AARoads is an unreliable source? Perhaps I am ignorant about how copying between wikis works, but this would be porting over sourced text which meets our standards not using them as a source right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Attribution templates are for direct copy-pastes from compatibly licenced sources. Whether the copied text is sourced to the compatible source or to sources within that copied text is distinct from the need to attribute writing. The same principles within WP:CWW (including that Wikipedia is not the source) would apply to copying from a compatible wiki. CMD (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense, they also use CC 4.0 so should be compatible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:A260 highway (Russia)#Requested move 13 January 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:A260 highway (Russia)#Requested move 13 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

New Jersey County Route titles

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia has the following 49 articles at disambiguated titles, with unoccupied base page names. If there are multiple county routes by these names, the base page names should be disambiguated. If the New Jersey roads are the only topics by these names, the articles should be moved to the undisambiguated titles. BD2412 T 01:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

BD2412 T 01:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is County Route 504 IS an ambiguous title. There are dozens, if not hundreds of roads that have the title County Route 504 in the USA alone. So what makes New Jersey so special to have rights to the primary article, just because some wikipedian created that article first? Assuming all county roads with the number 504 had articles, the logical thing to do is have "County Route 504" be a disambiguation page. However, practically speaking that is not likely to happen. There was a time Wikipedia rewarded content creation and new editors making contributions, and such articles would be created. The rewards and incentives have changed, and now behavior such as mass spraying every flaw (or even potential flaw) with an orange tag and arguing about notability or primary sources is more rewarded than actually building an encyclopedia. So there is not likely to be many more articles created about things such as county routes. Given the environment today, the next article to survive the article creation bureaucracy is more likely to be some hipster foodie joint in Seattle that was only in business for 6 months, than infrastructure the taxpayers spent millions of dollars to build. I only wish I was being cynical with that statement, but peruse the process page for your favorite 3 letter acronym and see for yourself.Dave (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Highways/Archive_10&oldid=1221694391"