Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Europe/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Definition of "Europe"
One question to answer is how we want to define "Europe" for the purposes of the task force. What countries are we including? Eventually there will be adjacent task forces for Africa and Asia, and countries could be included in two task forces. Do we want to include Greenland here? The reason for Greenland would be that there probably won't be a North American task force. (The US and Canada have full projects already, and Latin America as a grouping would include Mexico and Central America in addition to South America. The Caribbean may or may not be a separate group.) What does everyone think? Imzadi 1979 → 15:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are several issues to be considered:
- Geographical boundaries of Europe include EU-27 countries (minus Cyprus), the Balkans (including European Turkey), Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, western Russia and even a small bit of Kazakhstan.
- E-road network cover the above territories plus the rest of Turkey, Georgia (country), Armenia, Azerbaijan and Asian parts of Russia and Kazakhstan.
- Overlap of the two should not be problematic to define as Europe for the purposes of the subproject. Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkey span between two continents and are more specific for various reasons: most of them having to do with subjective perceptions. I suspect Kazakhstan might be better suited for a future Asian task force, while Turkey is generally regarded as attached to Europe rather than the Middle East. As far as Russia is concerned, I have no clue what to do there - most of it is Asia, a substantial part is Europe - much greater proportion relative to Turkey. Most of its roads and cities and pretty much everything except land is in Europe. Maybe there'll be a Russian task force once, but for now I simply cannot say.
- Those bordering areas, geographically outside Europe which should probably be included might be Greenland for the reasons specified above and since it is formally a part of Denmark; Georgia/Armenia/Azerbaijan for reasons similar to inclusion of Asian part of Turkey; and Cyprus as a part of the EU, reasonably close to Europe.
- Non-EU countries in the Balkans and the eastern Europe (Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova), Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and the European microstates should definitely be included here.
- To recap, in my opinion that should be: certainly everything geographically in Europe west of Russia and Caspian Sea, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, Cyprus and Greenland. Russia - probably so.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, UK has its own roads project and need not be here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't thinking that the Middle East needed to be split off from Asia when the latter task force forms There's no reason that Russia and Turkey can't be included in both Europe and Asia. Yes, that might mean purely Asian highways showing up in the European assessment categories and the reverse. Imzadi 1979 → 16:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- This sounds good - this isn't how I would define Europe, but we need to include the countries with E-roads in the European task force. --Rschen7754 23:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes and no. We can use a type=E to assess the E-roads into a series of categories much like type=I works to categorize the Interstate Highways in the US into their own categories. That would work even if the article corresponds to a highway that's in a country assigned to Asia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Probably the best definition of "Europe" is to include countries that, geographuically speaking, are eligible for member ship of the Council of Europe. Martinvl (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- That is virtually the same as the above except CoE may admit Kazakhstan (which is squarely in Asia save for a fraction of its territory) and I'm not sure about Greenland as a potential CoE member. Besides, this is not about achieving the best geographical or the politically nicest definition, rather it's about practicability - hence exclusion of the UK, for instance.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Probably the best definition of "Europe" is to include countries that, geographuically speaking, are eligible for member ship of the Council of Europe. Martinvl (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes and no. We can use a type=E to assess the E-roads into a series of categories much like type=I works to categorize the Interstate Highways in the US into their own categories. That would work even if the article corresponds to a highway that's in a country assigned to Asia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, UK has its own roads project and need not be here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
A proposal affecting this task force
See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(road_junction_lists)#Should_European_Junction_lists_be_separate_articles? for the discussion. Imzadi 1979 → 17:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Proposal to geotag all highway articles
There is currently a proposal to modify WT:RJL to allow geotagging of highway articles in the junction lists, at specified important points along the route. Your input is welcome. --Rschen7754 03:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
RFC on coordinates in highway articles
There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 01:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Greek roads
I've just stub-sorted Greek National Road 87 and found it wasn't included in List of highways numbered 87 (it is now). Then added the missing Greek item on List of highways numbered 1, and I guess there are a lot more missing entries. Someone looking for a quiet little job, or a bit of clever AWB-work, might like to check Roads in Greece and add them where needed. I'm leaving this note at the two relevant WikiProjects - Greece and Roads/Europe. Over to you. PamD 17:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
New template: infobox highway system
The US has had {{infobox state highway system}}, but now there is a more generic {{infobox highway system}} designed for a more globalized use. Imzadi 1979 → 21:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Citing a map
Please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Citing a map for a discussion on possible updates to the format of map citations in Citation Style 1 using {{cite map}}. Imzadi 1979 → 16:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Please, stop the war.Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Kreuz Stuttgart
I recently edited the Kreuz Stuttgart article. It's now very pretty. I also translated parts from the German article. Than I get to the talk-page to place the translating template and have seen the note about "deleting all". Why is this? Can we stop this deleting hype and put the interchange articles under protection? --Chandler321 (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose all deletions: see my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#German highway interchanges. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
B
D
E
F
G
H
K
M
O
R
S
V
W
As an exercise to see what work needs to be done here, I copied the entries from w:de:Kategorie:Autobahnkreuz in Hessen, then in the next column entered the same name for the English Wikipedia. If I found spelling variants existing in the English, I listed those in the third column. Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sure it is a lot of work. For some of them a stub has already existed and was deleted for notification-reasons. But first we need to check which of them is really a connection between two Autobahnen. For example: the w:de:Krifteler Dreieck, Krifteler Dreieck and the w:de:Autobahnanschlussstelle Wetzlar-Ost, Autobahnanschlussstelle Wetzlar-Ost are no connections between two Autobahnen. --Chandler321 (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've just checked them all, and only the two you've identified don't qualify as interchanges between two or more Autobahns. Strictly speaking, they are, for that reason, not really Autobahnkreuze at all, and should not be in that de.wiki category. I have therefore deleted them from the above list. It seems to me that the two next steps to consider are: (a) identifying reliable sources likely to cover more than one autobahn and interchange; and (b) upgrading at least some of the most important autobahn articles for this part of Germany (which I suspect are Bundesautobahn 3, Bundesautobahn 5, Bundesautobahn 7 and Bundesautobahn 45). At the moment, en.wiki really doesn't do justice to this very important transport network.
- Sure it is a lot of work. For some of them a stub has already existed and was deleted for notification-reasons. But first we need to check which of them is really a connection between two Autobahnen. For example: the w:de:Krifteler Dreieck, Krifteler Dreieck and the w:de:Autobahnanschlussstelle Wetzlar-Ost, Autobahnanschlussstelle Wetzlar-Ost are no connections between two Autobahnen. --Chandler321 (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- One English language reference I have found already is Vahrenkamp, Richard (2010). The German Autobahn, 1920-1945: Hafraba Visions and Mega Projects. Lohmar: Josef Eul Verlag. ISBN 9783899369403. (which, eg, devotes a whole chapter to the Frankfurter Kreuz). The German language websites www.autobahngeschichte.com and www.autobahnarchiv.eu also appear to be promising (and to have some English language content), although I have not looked at them closely yet. If you can find others, I suggest you add them below. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- The direction I was looking is if I can get help in the correct names, I was considering doing more like I did with Kreuz_Kassel-West&redirect=no. If you look, you will see that this redirect has a Category. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to slow down your engagement, but I think first of all, we need to stop the deletion war on such interchange articles. Two are still on AfD-discussion. And it seems that they make again a decision about ALL interchanges instead of one, so the whole category is in danger. AND someone should copy all existing interchange articles, so they don't get lost. Second one is that the HighwayProject group needs to make "create guidelines for notification for roadways" to one of their project goals. Then (as a third) we can go through all existing German Autobahn interchange articles to check if they really connect two or more Autobahnen and look if we can find a fitting existing english article or not. Fourth: upgrading the existing Autobahn articles is a good idea anyway (in the worst case we can put the different interchanges within the Autobahn/Bundesautobahn articles). And then we can write or improve the interchange articles.
The main problem is to find literature in English. Even in German there are only a few books about Autobahnen, because this is not that "book topic" No1 as you can guess. Here some suggestions of the KVK (Karlsruhe virtual catalogue) [1] for books. The english book you found, Bahnfrend, is a way too old for most of the interchanges, because a main part of them were built something after 1970. But the websites you found appear to be promising. --Chandler321 (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Should Appian Way be moved to Via Appia?
Should Appian Way be moved to Via Appia, as is customary in articles such as:
among others? And should the title be italic (pun not intended)? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Irish Regional Roads
Seven articles on Irish Regional Roads are being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R160 road (Ireland). PamD 10:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Link error
In the article Provincial road N367 (Netherlands), there seems to be a link error in {{NLDint}}. Could someone help to fix it? The text Groningen should link to Groningen (province). – Editør (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I found some documentation at Template:Jctint/core, which showed that there was an alternate way to create the Wikilink, and from there changed "province" to "province_special", I believe successfully.
I presume that this is a template bug, but I don't know where, if someone wants to dig further. Unscintillating (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking into it and finding a way to fix the problem. – Editør (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I found some documentation at Template:Jctint/core, which showed that there was an alternate way to create the Wikilink, and from there changed "province" to "province_special", I believe successfully.
Roads in Montenegro
Hello. So, I asked for help at help desk, and was suggested to find more specific group that would help. I think that you guys should be the most appropriate and active group for this. Also, I am aware that there should be a lot of work done to improve the articles I have created, but I also think that even as they are, they should be online. I actually didn't know this project existed. So below is a copy of what I asked at help desk.
"Recently I have discovered that all the roads in Montenegro have been renamed/recategorised. What happened is that Montenegrin Ministry of Transport has issued new bylaw with new names or changed categories for some roads. Here is the link to the bylaw in Official gazette of Montenegro. It is in Montenegrin, but as it is basically only a list, it is not difficult to understand it, even for non Montenegrin speaker.
With this in mind, I have created on my userpage articles that are in line with this relatively new bylaw, and also new template for the highways in Montenegro. Here are the links to articles M-1, M-1, M-1.1, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-5, M-6, M-7, M-8, M-9, M-10, M-11, M-12 and template. So, I did the legwork, but I am not sure how to properly proceed, and would love help from more experienced editors.
IMHO, for roads that have been just renamed (e.g. current article for M-2.3 and future article for M-10), should also just be renamed in wikipedia, and then updated as needed. Things get a little bit tricky, when one road has been renamed, and then second road has same new designation as first road's previous designation. (e.g. current article for M-6 witch is renamed to M-7, but there is also new road with M-6 designation). In this case, I believe that first we should do the renaming of article for first road (so as to keep the history of article/road), and after that is completed, a new article should be created for second road with same name as previous article for first road. Next, if we have same designation previously and currently, and if a lot of road actually follows the same route (e.g. current article for M-2 and future article for M-2), I believe that in that case, only simple change should be made. Last situation is, new designation of new road, in which case only new article should be created, and that's it.
Note: Since it was a lot of work for a single wikipedian to do, I probably have same mistakes in new articles, but I am sure that for most part it is correct. I used old articles as much as possible, have created new images to reflect current status, and, even thou I know that articles should be better sourced, I believe that they are improvement over old ones and should be published. So, I would appreciate the help with this, as I have never asked for deletion/moving and staff like that for articles, so it would be better if someone else does it. If what I above suggested is the way it should be done, I could list all the movements/creations/deletions that should be done, so that experienced wikipedian can do it." Requiem mn (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
There have been some proposed changes to the A-Class review process at the discussion above. --Rschen7754 20:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)