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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion
For some reason, these are all separate articles and I put a mergeto template on the last two, and a mergefrom template on the first. I am not sure why they were separated in the first place, but they all should clearly be in the same article. I would also personally suggest renaming it "List of numbered highways in Iowa" or something like that if it is all merged. DandyDan2007 07:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
After further looking, I found an article called List of Iowa numbered highways. Not sure why there needs to be 4 different articles. And I have no idea what the finished article should look like. DandyDan2007 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The fourth article should definitely not exist, given that the first three do. Some states have a single article, some state split them into the three articles you mentioned in your first post. Either way is fine with me. -- NORTHtalk 07:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
List of Nevada state highways was a format that I believe SPUI created. It is basic and covers a lot of ground. I think this is a reasonable format to use or upgrade to a standard type of format. Vegaswikian 07:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a little too basic. The formatting's a little off, with the links bouncing back and forth between columns. SPUI created that format over a year ago and applied it to several states, many of which have moved toward something else. -- NORTHtalk 07:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I am moving a couple of states away from that format to a table that gives a short description of each highway. A list of numbers is not very helpful and is more easily accomplished with categories. Texas and Florida have split theres, mainly do to the size of the article. The main article talks about the system itself with links to the highways listed out on separate pages. --Holderca1 13:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
WOW. I've never seen the other three (good thing I left it alone.) anyway - Best choice to me by far is to put the US and interstate highway lists on Iowa State Highways and rename it "List of <Iowa numbered highways>". If you feel that makes for a large article, separate the three and use a dab page (I think that's what the 4th was supposed to be) -- master_sonTalk - Edits 14:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Master son. The state highway list has a nice simple format, just expand and rename it. --Sable232 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
(indent reset)Yeah whatever work best for the specific state, some states have more highways than others, Texas has over 4,000, not really practical to include all on one page. I would strongly urge to add a short, one sentence description of each one of the highways on the list though. Otherwise, you just have a glorified category. --Holderca1 15:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
So would it be best to merge everything into Iowa State Highways and rename it "List of Iowa State Highways"? I don't see how adding US and Interstate routes makes it too long. DandyDan2007 10:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say either have them all on one page, or all split and having none of the lists on the main page, not somewhere in between. --Holderca1 11:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That's fine the way you have it. If you needed redirect help, anyone with AWB can do the job in no time flat. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's all done. Just need someone with AWB to fix the redirects. DandyDan2007 21:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Done - there will be a few left - all talk pages -- master_sonTalk - Edits 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
A few things
Latest comment: 17 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion
Here's a few things that have been on my mind for a while, split into separate sections to make discussion easier. Three topics are presented below, along with my standpoints on each. Feel free to comment on my points or voice your own in each section. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Infoboxes for U.S. route bannered routes
Numerous variations of infoboxes are currently being used on articles for U.S. route bannered routes. Some are using {{Infobox U.S. Route}}; others use {{Infobox road}}. Both infoboxes, when set up correctly, perform the same function. We should use only one or the other, however, and for consistency, I propose that {{Infobox U.S. Route}} be used. My rationale is that since the browse row in the infobox is a non-issue, as these articles are not to be included in any browses per WP:USRD/INNA, the state that the route is in is a non-issue is well, making {{Infobox U.S. Route}} suitable for this purpose. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I think per this discussion, it should be fine for people who want to use {{infobox road}} to continue to do so. For me at least, I work primarily on single state routes, and NJ uses infobox road directly, so it comes naturally to me. That being said, I have no problem if people want to convert the infobox road's to a specific infobox, provided they're doing something else at the same time, not just unnecessarily "fixing" a redirect. (Actually in this case, they're unnecessarily creating a redirect.) Basically, I think it should be the same conclusion we came to regarding the "type" in the infobox. -- NORTHtalk 19:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The bigger question, then, is whether or not bannered routes should use "state=whatever state it's in" or "state=US", if using Infobox road. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 21:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, it probably doesn't matter, but I'm definitely leaning towards state=state and type=US. -- NORTHtalk 22:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It does matter in this case, as "state=state" and "state=US" bring up two completely different sets of links below the infobox. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that. In that case it's probably best to just go ahead and use the U.S. Route infobox. My bad. -- NORTHtalk 23:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a relatively simple way to get both sets to show? For example, if "type=US", have {{infobox road}} display the US links in addition to whatever else it's supposed to display??? -- NORTHtalk 23:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Infoboxes for Interstate spurs and loops
Like above, numerous infoboxes are currently being used on articles for Interstate spurs and loops, mostly {{Infobox road}}. Some time ago, {{Infobox Interstate/Business}} was made for this purpose; I reverted its usage, saying that it was excessive. We are now a few months removed from that, and I am willing to reopen discussion on its usage. However, it would make sense to use {{Infobox Interstate/Business}} only if {{Infobox U.S. Route}} is used for U.S. route bannered routes. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Picture categories on Wikimedia Commons
Many images on Wikipedia are being migrated to the Commons on a daily basis. This is a good thing - no question. The problem is that after they get migrated, where are they categorized? One obvious place, as part of a discussion regarding {{Infobox road}}, is in a category named after itself (example: pictures of Interstate 74 go in Category:Interstate 74). But what about on a state-wide level? Category:Roads in the United States exists, containing cats for nearly every state's roads. These generic road by state cats are all we need; making cats for each state's highway system is extremely premature, at least until each state has over 200 photographs that need to be split into a new category. If there's a single state that meets that mark, I'd be shocked.
Of course, all of the standalone cats I mentioned (ex. Category:Interstate 74) need a collective parent somewhere. Florida has such a cat at Category:State Roads in Florida. However, I would rather see the name be Category:State highways in Florida for what I believe is the same reason most of the article cats are "X state highways" on Wikipedia: it avoids the common name mess and it provides for excellent consistency. Additionally, most of the cats on the Commons already follow the "State highways in X" convention. The parent of these cats would be the "Roads in X" cat (as is done in Florida), and Commons:Category:State highways in the United States. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
So, to summarize this, the structure will be as follows:
Roads in the United States
Interstate Highways
Interstate 4
Interstate 5 (etc.)
U.S. Routes
U.S. Route 1
U.S. Route 2 (etc.)
Roads in Alaska
Roads in Arizona (etc.)
Correct me if I'm wrong there.
Also, I agree it would be best if the images go in Roads in x, which may contain other road-related cats, like shields, maps, and specific highways, but not a separate category like "State highways in x" unless it's really needed.
Right, but would it be affected by this proposal in any way?
Also, I thought I'd mention this: Commons didn't approve me to use AWB to recategorize images. They'd prefer you leave a request for a bot to do it at User talk:Orgullobot/commands. —Scott5114↗ 18:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. It shouldn't at least, the shields should be in those categories as a minimum, if they are included in others as well, I don't know. --Holderca1 18:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Since there's been a healthy amount of discussion since I've been here last, I'll respond to each thread separately.
At Scott's first post: at the top-most levels, this is correct. Upon looking at Category:Roads in New York, which I did not build, I notice a few things:
Interstates are included as part of the cat. On a logistics level, this makes sense (I-84 is a road in New York, after all), but does it make sense from a categorical level? Not everything in the I-84 cat is going to relate to "Roads in New York", making I-84 a false sub-cat. Now, if the category was "Interstate 84 in New York", that'd be a different story. I-495, in contrast, is fine on all levels since it is both a road in New York and relates completely to roads in New York.
The naming for map categories is a bit spotty. In NY, it is an overly specific "New York State Route Maps". I'd like to see this changed to "Maps of roads in New York", and the "Maps of roads in ..." standardized for every state. For states whose systems are completely or significantly mapped (like Michigan), the existing cat would become "Maps of state highways in Michigan", and be a sub-cat of "Maps of roads in Michigan".
To expand on the suggested hierarchy above, I'll show what I think the "Roads in New York" cat should look like:
Roads in New York
State highways in New York
New York State Route 2
New York State Route 3 (etc)
Maps of roads in New York
Roads in New York City
Interstates in New York (*)
Interstate 84
Interstate 495 (New York)
New York State Thruway
Streets in New York
*=If Interstates are to be included in the cat.
My reasoning for including the "extra" cats like "State highways in New York" is that a majority of states, such as NJ, TX, and FL, already have these cats. Additionally, the usage of a blanket cat to cover the state highways will reduce the clutter on the main cat page.
I'd leave both of the cats you mentioned alone but add "Cat:Roads in the United States" as a parent cat of "Cat:Road signs in the United States". Some of the pics in Road Signs will probably need additional categorization as well.
At Scott's third post: "Cat:Photos of Interstate Highway shields" should be kept, but made a child of "Cat:Road signs in the United States". As with the Road Signs cat, the pics probably need additional cats.
At Scott's second post: the shield cats should remain as is; however, the shield cats should be made children of the "Cat:State highways in ..." or "Cat:Roads in ...", where appropriate. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 21:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Infobox shields
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Is anyone having difficulties with the latest SVG shields not ever loading. I'm finding this happening quite often in the California routes in particular.JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
So is the problem with the browser or the actual SVG. The page you link to isn't too clear on that point. They just say to purge the image. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's the actual SVG. What you have to do is click on the "blank" image and follow the image to the commons description page. When on that page, right-click the history tab and click (on Firefox) "Copy link location". (Not sure what the IE equivalent is anymore...) Paste the URL into your address bar, replacing "action=history" with "action=purge". Multiple page reloads may be necessary. Additionally, the shield then needs to be purged on the article page that it appears on as well. If that doesn't work, post what shields aren't displaying and I should be able to fix it. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Question: are you sure it's the latest shields that aren't rendering? New shields should have no problem, particularly if they're made in Inkscape. Old shields should be the ones that still occasionally have issues. -- NORTHtalk 22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If you are having a problem with a particular shield, request to have it remade at WP:USRD/S/R. --Holderca1 02:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Use of old shields on current routes...
Latest comment: 17 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion
See U.S. Route 29 - specifically, the U.S. 170 shield on that page. U.S. 170 no longer exists.
I've thought about it, and have come to the conclusion that I'm not a fan. Depending on the age of the road that got replaced, there's no proof that the route was ever signed in that manner. We should just leave the primary shields on the page. —Rob(talk) 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, this opens up a whole can of worms...I don't have the time to get into it now (I have class), but I'll be back in a few hours. I need a haircut, too. All beside the point. I have stuff to say, but I need to go. --MPDT / C 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that if the road was decommissioned or redesignated prior to the use of a particular shield design, then we shouldn't include the new shield on the page. It doesn't make sense to do so. That particular shield never appeared along side the roadway. --Holderca1 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The only problem I have with US 170 shield is that, from that era, the shield looked different than today. If it was an old shield, I'd be okay with that. Best example is that the PA shields were a different design in the 1920s. --myselfalso 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I think they're fine if they're included in a browse row (as the route identifier in the green box), but otherwise they should be removed. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
<edit conflict>If there are historical sources, old maps, books, newspapers, and magazines as examples, then we should include the old shield, especially on the discontinued roads. For roads still in use, it would be reasonable to have a gallery for the history of their signage. Vegaswikian 20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't be including the modern shields if they were never used. However if we can get someone to make a version of the older style shield then I think it would be acceptable to include it. That said, does anyone know the exact year they switched to the newer shield (Florida and California excepted). I suspect some of the articles on completely discontinued routes could also benefit from having the older style shields on the pages. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where I stand on this. On one hand, it could be useful to know that (part of) the route was once US 170, but at the same time, part of the route was also US 211, US etc etc etc, and this goes for a LOT of routes (including interstates: e.g. Interstate 76). That means we'd have to add a lot of routes. I'd have to say I disagree with using the shields unless the entire route was formerly that designation (like the Interstates). That said, I'll set up my next comment below. --MPDT / C 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Out of place?
Also, for what it's worth, the shield hanging out in space doesn't seem right to me. But I'm not sure what else I would do with it, except maybe put a caption listing the dates the road existed. —Rob(talk) 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I almost deleted it when I added the heading which is now the target for the US 170 redirect. Vegaswikian 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is out of place. Unfortunately, this is a problem with both past and future routes; we have a shield just hanging there. As I said above, if the entire route was formerly just one designation, then I feel we could use a shield. If we did, we could look into having a parameter in the infobox for "former" or "future" designations. Why not just take a step outside the box and do something like this, and just use shields like that and put it (smaller) in the infobox below the current shield. For Interstates...well the current shields can stay I guess...but if so, we could just put "FORMER" where "INTERSTATE" is. --MPDT / C 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That would work. I've taken to bolding the former routes in the history section, if the historic route is a redirect. There's no happy solution for routes that were historic... other than to make separate articles for them and link to all of the routes they're now a part of. Still not sure how I feel about the shields at all. —Rob(talk) 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea, but I can't say I like the "former" shield idea. Especially since that shield isn't even the former US shield but the California variant. I think using the old 1950's shield and just putting it in a thumbnail w/caption should be sufficient (assuming the most of or the entire route used to have the former designation). JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Historic routes table?
All right... I've tried out a "Historic routes" table on U.S. Route 29. It keeps the shield, but de-emphasizes it; it also just lists the name and the date, with the description of the historic route remaining in the text. Opinions? —Rob(talk) 02:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, but US 29 is a bad example. I mean, many of these routes are. Because then not only do you have to list every route, but then you have to list from where the former routes existed. Otherwise, you're insinuating that the entire length of US 29 was US 170 at one point. Same with all the other historic sections of US 29. Solve one problem, another comes up. --MPDT / C 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What if we put in "NC-VA" as column 4? I'm trying to make the concept as at-a-glance as possible. —Rob(talk) 03:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
We can try it, why not. Although we just keep adding more templates to an already crowded article. --MPDT / C 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
U.S. 170 - 1926-1931My original preferred alternative was to drop the shields altogether - this way the shields stay, but they're given some context, as opposed to floating in space. (Another alternative is included with this post.) Its mostly a look-and-feel deal, because 5 of those shields floating in space without context doesn't seem like a good idea. —Rob(talk) 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Editors of the past
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Holderca1 asked: "I wouldn't mind seeing some of our editors of the past all coming back, perhaps we can reach out to those that are still active on Wiki and see exactly why they left the project and what needs to be done to see them return."
We haven't had any issues with ambiguous names here since last summer. Everything has it's set name now if that's your only concern. I don't think we've had any naming disputes since last July. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 22:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to return, we will welcome you back. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
He's serious folks... we will welcome you back. Some more formally then others. ;) JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 00:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Need help in Washington
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
An editor has recently been going through and creating unwikified stubs for several state highways in Washington. (Primarily it seems the 5xx routes.) I can probably put in a bunch of work this weekend, but I'm not sure I'll be able to keep up. Thus, I'm on a recruitment drive.
Secondly, I think it's probably time for Washington to abandon it's unique browsing system and switch back to a sequential INNA order. (It originally used one up until a discussion last year on WT:WASH.) While it makes sense, it's counterintuitive to inexperienced editors who are putting the browsing on all routes, and if you look at the WSDOT route log, the routes are listed sequentially, i.e. with US 195 and US 197 in between SR 194 and SR 202, and SR 410 in between SR 409 and SR 411.
Please help, and share your thoughts. -- NORTHtalk 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you identify the editor or the stubs? I'd be glad to help a bit. --Lukobe 19:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Wiki890. They're of varying degrees of quality, and generally good starting points for articles, but it seems all need at least some wikification. (Some need a great deal.)
Thanks for your help. It's the first week of class of the quarter, so I can't edit quite as much at present as I normally do. -- NORTHtalk 19:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The FHWA sorts Interstates numerically: [1] Is this the best way? I don't know. But I think that whatever we decide for Washington should also apply to Interstates and U.S. Routes. --NE2 00:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think one important difference between Washington and US/Interstates is that the US/Interstate system is better defined. With the exception of I-238, every interstate follows a clear rule. In Washington, SR 121 is numbered as a spur of US 12, but it's routing has been changed so that it ends at I-5 at both ends and doesn't come within ten miles of US 12. US 97 has/had spurs numbered 13x, 15x, and 97x.
I think the "parent route" system works fine for the US and Interstates, which have no system-wide browsing. But the way the system is implemented in Washington is too confusing for the majority of editors. -- NORTHtalk 19:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Junction Table Instructions
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings! I've noticed that, in attempting to follow what instructions are there, I found that the instructions are incredibly vague. For example, for the state column, nothing states whether to use the postal abbreviation or the state full name. Someone found my sandbox where I've been working on a junction list and made the changes and now things work, but that sort of thing needs to be outlined in the instructions better. Were the directions created to be incredibly vague to people not familiar with the project on purpose, or by accident? I'll add a note stating to use the postal abbreviations, but it might be worth while for someone more familiar with the syntax to go through and expand the instructions a bit. Thanks. CascadiaTALK| HISTORY 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Question about circular shields
Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion
I was looking into the Kentucky problem earlier and found something that caught my eye. If you look at Shields/Research and Shields/Database, it says that Kentucky is supposed to be using Circle sign X.svg. Now, there's of course a number of states that use circular shields, New Jersey included. New Jersey used to use Circle sign X.svg, but last year, it switched to its own set of shields, which uses an elongated circle (File:New Jersey 184.svg) instead of an oval ().
So, my question is about Image:Circle sign 3di.svg, which seems to be an effort to change the "Circle signs" from an oval to an elongated circle. And the question is twofold:
Why?
Should we be replacing old 3-digit circle signs with new ones?
Okay, I lied, here's a third question: What is the point of having separate sets for all the states that use circular shields? In the case of New Jersey, in real life, some signs are ovals, some are elongated circles; some use Series C, some use Series D. Using either set, it's impossible to be 100% accurate. -- NORTHtalk 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
To eliminate the state-specific circle sets. Two sets will be created: the circle set (using ovals/elongated circle/whatever) and the ellipse set (using ellipses). States can then use the one most appropriate. Mississippi and West Virginia, the only two states that use ellipses only, have already received the new shields at "Ellipse sign X.svg".
If its equivalent in the generic (circle/ellipse) sets has been made, then sure.
There really isn't a point, hence this conversion project. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 04:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sweet... Thanks for clarifying. Just to clarify my second question, by replacing old signs, I meant the files themselves with new ones based on your new template.
So eventually (i.e. once we update the "Circle sign" set) New Jersey should go back to using the circle set, and the state-specific sets would be sent to IfD (or the Commons equivalent)? -- NORTHtalk 05:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I hate to burst your bubble, but this sign for WV 857 is pretty clearly not elliptical. I think it would probably be okay to go a step further in this project and only have one set – no opinion on which one though. -- NORTHtalk 06:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the signs halfway down this page for MS 468. The fact is no one's consistent with their circular signs. There's no reason we should waste not-so-valuable server space with multiple sets of images when one will do. -- NORTHtalk 06:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that we need to use the specs per state here - take Iowa for example - They use circle signs - but use the 24x24 for all signs - 2d and 3d. their font types also differ from what the generic circle sign is for all signs except 1-digit signs. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 14:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Iowa of course would be an exception and should keep their own set. But if the DOT can't follow their own specs, neither should we. -- NORTHtalk 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Now you know my pain when creating some states shields, they aren't the most consistent. My favorites are the states that have specs, but when you follow the specs, the freaking number doesn't fit on the shield. Thats just when you mess around with it until you get it to fit and use real-world examples as a guide. --Holderca1 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's back this up a bit. When I said that states use a consistent set, I didn't rule out the possibility of signage errors. West Virginia's specs explicitly specify ellipses (as I've seen the sign fabrication details), making the above example an error. In any case, my claims above are heavily derived from Talk:Circular highway shield, which has a table showing what states use what (a table not made by myself, so don't chew my head off if it's wrong). As for "There's no reason we should waste not-so-valuable server space with multiple sets of images when one will do.", that's a strong argument for consolidating the New Jersey and Delaware sets, which has very few differences other than 3-digit shields with a "1" in them.
Should the rest of the circle signs be converted from ellipses to elongated circles? Yes. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've looked into it, and I retract my previous comment. Both sets are necessary (plus a third for Iowa). Kentucky seems to pretty consistently use circles as opposed to ellipses; I'll take your word for it on Mississippi and West Virginia with the ellipses. -- NORTHtalk 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but New Jersey is really inconsistent. North Jersey seems to use newer signs, and those are ellipses. South Jersey is inconsistent, using a mix of old and new signs. And from what I've seen in New Jersey, all new signs use ellipses, series D for 2dis, and series C for 3dis. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, fairly good description of the situation. When this happens, New Jersey probably would switch to the Ellipse set. -- NORTHtalk 02:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Overruled an re-reverted. We're going to stick with the naming convention in this discussion since the "Circle sign" SVGs need to be fixed anyway. -- NORTHtalk 04:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Status?
OK, it's been a week and nothing's happened. Since my method of distinguishing circular shields from elliptical shields irked some editors (the reasons for which IMHO were extremely weak), I'm staying out of this. Whatever happens, I hope that a set of shields isn't made solely for Kentucky - we don't need four redundant sets of shields lying around. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 23:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Also wondering where the status is... -- NORTHtalk 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Two sets will be created:
"Circle sign.svg" will be ellipse shields. They will have Series D font on 2dis as well as 3dis that have a 1 in the hundreds digit. Everything else will have Series C font.
"Elegonated circle.svg" will be the elegonated shields. Every single shield will have Series C font.
Delaware will have its own set, although all of their shields are elegonated. The major difference is that all of their shields use Series D font.
Iowa will continue to have and maintain their own set.
Send all of the "Ellipse sign.svg" files, once they have been orphaned, to Commons deletion requests.
Why are using series D for the 2dis? West Virginia and Mississippi, the two states that will utilize the proposed circle set, both use series C for every 2di between 10 and 99. Only 1-9 utilize series D, and that's only in Mississippi. West Virginia, however, uses series C for every sign.
The correct spelling is "elongated".
Any proof of that? I've seen Delaware roads with series C.
No problems there, as Iowa uses a 24x24 shield for all routes.
That's your call, but I preferred my setup better. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 16:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Updated status since I've sort of taken over this project.
There are two sets, Circle sign X.svg and Elongated circle X.svg. For the most part, what Vishwin said is accurate. The circle signs remain largely unchanged from when SPUI first uploaded them, and use series D when possible, series C when not. (Why? Inertia.) Elongated circle signs use series C always.
Delaware does not get its own set, and has already been converted over to the elongated circle set.
Iowa does keep its own set, since it uses a square shield for 3-digit routes.
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hey everyone. Question I came across while preparing to cleanup Mississippi.
There obviously is, or at least was, an MS 69. It already has an article, is listed as the western terminus of Alabama State Route 14, and appears on Google Maps.
However, it doesn't appear in the official route log. Interstate 69 appears in it's place, although it appears to be in the wrong category (Interstate highways have a separate table). My guess is that it's one of two explanations.
MS 69 was renumbered when I-69 was officially signed in the state, but I can't figure out what it would have been renumbered to.
The DOT screwed up when they added I-69 to the route log and accidentally removed MS 69.
Anyone help figuring out which it is would be much appreciated. -- NORTHtalk 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it's the later. It seems pretty obvious from the evidence in hand that MS 69 does infact exist. It just isn't in the log, probably because "69" was preempted by the Interstate of the same number. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I have this tendancy to post questions to talk pages and then find out the answer for myself five minutes later. I-69 appears in both charts, obviously in error and accidentally obliterating MS 69, and MS 69 does appear elsewhere in the documentation.
Everyone laugh at the Mississippi Department of Transportation! -- NORTHtalk 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Like we needed another excuse to laugh at Mississippi. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, we did consider the DOT sites as a reliable source for information. Vegaswikian 23:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, they're reliable. Reliable doesn't necessarily mean perfect. -- NORTHtalk 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Uploading on the Commons
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Q1: I'm assuming there's no way to mass-upload say about 200 images without using any external programs other than my web browser, is there? Q2: This is more for TMF, but does anyone know if circle shields were made that look like this: File:Virginia 600.svg? I know we have ellipses and elongated circles, but I'm still waiting for something to use for the Virginia routes and I haven't seen them. I've made them, and so far I've made about a third of what I plan on (600-799 so far). I plan on uploading them as "Virginia XXX.svg", because "Circle sign XXX.svg" is already taken, and "Circle sign XXX circle.svg" seems a little...weird. Let me know, 600's the only one I've uploaded and only for this example. --MPDT / C 00:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Q1: Take a look at Commonist. The installation is a little hairy, but once you get it going, it's a godsend.
Q2: No, there aren't any sets yet for that purpose, at least not in the 600 range. I would actually name them "Iowa XXX.svg" because Iowa also uses "square" shields for 3-digits, and the set already exists up to 438 (skipping a few here and there). Iowa gets the name because (1) they're already there, (2) it's for their primary highways as opposed to secondaries, and (3) like you said... all the better names are taken. -- NORTHtalk 07:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I thought there was another state that used them and I couldn't remember what it was. Even though there aren't any Iowa highways 600-900, I will upload them as "Iowa XXX". They'll all be in one place. As those Guinness people say "Brilliant!" That works for me if it works for everyone else. I'll get around to it when I figure out Commonist unless otherwise told not to. --MPDT / C 14:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
References
Latest comment: 17 years ago30 comments11 people in discussion
Anyone have any problems if I run a bot to convert <references /> to {{reflist}}? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I will 100% support converting to {{reflist}}. Seeing that lots of GA/FAs have this kind of a format, it could be a starting point for peer reviews and such, as well as standardizing the look of all USRD articles. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 03:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What's the point? They both do the same thing, right? --Sable232 03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
On the surface, yes. However, the template makes the font size of the references smaller (helpful when the list of refs is very long) and adds the potential to display the refs in multiple columns if needed. As Krimpet said, there's nothing lost in the conversion, so we may as well be consistent with the FA and GAs produced by this project and convert. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, there's nothing to lose from converting, and the added column formatting functionality is quite helpful for articles with lots of references. Krimpet (talk/review) 03:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem: it's a huge waste of server resources. Much easier would be changing the default output of references to be small. —METS501 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but that does not enable us to use columns, like we can in {{reflist}}. Also, every references list is different, with every one of them being of different size, so no. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
As explained at WP:PERF, the developers have stated that site performance and server load is not an issue. And in this case in particular, from the standpoint of Wikimedia's huge server farm, a few extra templates on pages would be barely a blip. Krimpet (talk/review) 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not the templates that are the problem, it's the (potentially) hundreds of thousands of articles that would need to be changed. —METS501 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Generally, you should not worry much about little things like templates and "server load" at a policy level. If they're expensive, we'll either fix it or restrict it at a technical level; that's our responsibility. . . .
As a technical matter, it's our responsibility to keep the system running well enough for what the sites require. In other words: it's not a policy issue. If and when we need to restrict certain things, we'll do so with technical measures. . . .
"Policy" shouldn't really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases; keeping things tuned to provide what the user base needs is our job.
Generally speaking, don't worry about the amount of articles to be changed. This is also the principle with AntiVandalBot and MartinBot, in which they revert millions of pages with vandalism every day. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
AVB and MartinBot don't make millions of edits per day! Usually, only one is running, and that equates to just over 2000 edits per day (at a guess). Martinp23 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stop pulling the WP:PERF thing on me. I've read it, I know it all, and I know enough to know that 100,000 edits which don't change anything is a waste of resources. Bots are different than ordinary policy with regard to technical measures. Bring it up on the talk page of the stylesheet if you want the default ref tag to be small refrences. —METS501 (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Where does the 100,000 number come from? There are less than 7,000 road articles. --Holderca1 16:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict]Exactly. Stop pulling over here and starting to become highly bureaucratical over on the USRD talk page. There is no such policy about wasting server resources, and in fact, as Krimpet pointed out, it's just a blip. Wikimedia has to handle millions of edits/uploads/blocks/deletes every second, on every Wikimedia wiki, so it's impractical to say that converting to {{reflist}} is wasting server resources. If you want to keep whining about this, you may whine to brion over on IRC or somewhere if you want to complain about server resources. This discussion was just about standardizing the look of the Highways department. This is not about changing the stylesheet so that every Wikipedia article's references are small. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 16:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If you would rather me not participate in the discussion, allow you to reach consensus, and then turn down approval for the bot, that's fine with me. But really, I'd much prefer to try and reach an acceptable agreement to everyone and then we can get the bot approved. —METS501 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Mets has stepped in here as a memeber of the Bot Approvals Group - an office on Wikipedia which approves bots (or doesn't) based on their merits and technical considerations. Mets is actually doing more than most by coming here and helping the discussion by putting across the BAG's opinion. Note that, without BAG approval, the bot will not run, so it's advisable that you all listen to Mets' valid concerns and try to work with them, rather than working around Mets and biting his head off at every corner. A bit of good faith would certainly not go amiss here. Martinp23 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems like he only came in and said that we can't do it. That in itself is not a valid concern, since he enforced it kind of gruffly, without looking at our strong consensus already present. I'm sorry, but converting to {{reflist}} is necessary, because USRD is in a state of trash, and that there are 6688 articles in USRD total. 2/3 of those articles have to be standardized, since they are a complete mess. Also about reflist, 99% of GAs/FAs use it or something similar to it. It doesn't matter how many refs there are, see DNA and (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction for examples of an article that has a gazillion refs, and another one which only has 14. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
No matter how he presented the issues, it's Mets' job to find that there is a need for, and a consensus for, the changes. The inclusion of one template most certainly won't fix the mess that USRD is apparently in, and if you're seeking standardisations, then it would surely be easier to go ofor the tried and tested method. The pint about GA/FAs is completely irrelevant, as it isn't reflsit which has had the articles promoted (and it probably has served no purpose at all in the eyes of the reviewer!). In any case, the BRFA has now been declined by another member of BAG. Martinp23 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed all the ones on WP:ILSR and used AWB to do it; it's not a problem. Some people say that it makes the references harder to read, but as long as the font size can be changed on a per-browser setting, I don't really have a problem with it. —Rob(talk) 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I plan on changing every PA route with my bot once I get that feature approved. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 16:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I support the idea of cleaning up and converting reference sections to {{reflist}} and do so myself when I edit an article. Also - Mets501 is making a mountain out of a molehill here when he worries about extra edits. If users want to do this (as long as they don't clog up the system that is) let them. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 18:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Mets' mountain is that, from the molehill of USRD doing the conversion, we could well end up with the rest of Wikipedia trying to conform by making hundreds of thousands of edits to the article space to bring their references into line. In this case, a style sheet change is far more appropriate, for obvious reasons! The tranclusion of {{reflist}} everywhere then poses another huge problem (even if only used on USRD) - re-caching in the event of a change to a template (and the devs do go mad when this happens - they took a whole wiki down at one point due to this). Also, there is the issue of the downsides of using reflist - in articles with few refs, it just makes things harder to read and work with, and is a pointless addition. Any bot would have to take account of this. Martinp23 19:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Kingboyk has gone ahead and denied the bot; his, mine, and Martinp23's objections show that I'm not the only one opposing this. —METS501 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll admit that when I replied regarding WP:PERF, I did not realize you were part of the bots committee; sorry, I trust that you guys know what you are talking about. Krimpet (talk/review) 02:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm lost, what does this have to do with a bot? --Holderca1 18:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I was going to tool my bot to change <references /> to {{Reflist}}, but Rschen's bot request to do this failed. Now that the bot request has failed, I think we should use {{Reflist}} on new articles from now on. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the question simply that it is, not a good idea to have a bot do this for the sake of doing it? Or, its bad for any bot to do this while making other updates to the same articles? Vegaswikian 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Mets501 said that they're a waste of server resources, but it's generally not so. That was the concern that led to the bot request being failed. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I thought we were discussing whether to use <references /> or {{Reflist}} in the articles. I thought he was against using a bunch of templates on the pages. I had no idea it was a bot he was against. --Holderca1 00:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Reference routes
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Another question about Mississippi, and then I'll start actually working on it, I swear!
What's the consensus for dealing with reference routes (i.e. NY's 900s, CT's 400+, Mississippi's 700+)? Am I correct in thinking that there should be a separate list, and they should be kept out of the browse? (For example, the previous route for MS 1 would be MS 621, not MS 994?) -- NORTHtalk 07:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
From my experience (with Iowa's 900 series) I would leave them off the browse and they would usually be a redirect to the route being referenced - if applicable. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This article needs cleanup
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Over the past month, namely since the last IRC meeting, there's been a lot of questions regarding the standardization being enforced throughout the project. How necessary is standardization? What is the standard? Is there consensus for the standard? To what degree do projects have to follow the standard?
It's pretty clear to me that there's no consensus for forcing any standard onto pre-existing active WikiProjects. That's evident from the backlash from Texas after changing the browsing system was threatened by them.
Also, the "standard" at WP:USRD wasn't derived from any consensus, and possibly not from any discussion period. When the project page was initally expanded here, it seemed to be primarily lifted from the New York WikiProject. In the junction table section, it included the line:
Use a table based on WP:USRD/ELG (omitting the exit number column) or, optionally, request that a junction table template (like {{NYint}}) be created at WT:USRD.
Was there any discussion about this change? More importantly, is this change even supported? These comments [2][3][4]
seem to indicate that it's not.
We need to be clear where we are going to attempt standardization, and to what extent we're trying to do so. And most importantly, we need to reach consensus to do so. -- NORTHtalk 22:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree for the most part with North on this. I believe we should be using the USDOT and the individual state DOTs as our guide. Sure there are standardizations across the nation, but each state is also entitled and does have alot of their own standards as well. Caltrans for instance doesn't often follow all of the federal standards, exits, mile posts, fonts, and button copy being the examples off hand I can think of. We should have some consensus derived standards, but at the same time we should let the projects determine specifics as they always have. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better. As the editor who expanded USRD to include a structure, my main intent was two-fold: one, to provide a skeleton structure for states with no WikiProject and two, to provide a structure that weak WikiProjects (one with little or no structure specifications) could emulate. Not copy - emulate. I made sure to stress the point that total standardization is bad, adding the line about junction tables (no preference in what method is used) and what I called the "structure clause", where states, both ones with and without WikiProjects, can change the structure as necessary. Also, correct, there was no consensus or discussion prior to the change - it was like INNA in a way in that the true discussion, the true consensus will be, and is being shown well after the fact.
Now, to answer the questions presented above, in no particular order. There is no need to force a project that works, like WP:NJSCR, to adopt every single mundane detail of the structure on USRD - in fact, there's no need for them to adopt anything presented on the page, mostly because that WikiProject already covers everything on USRD in some way, shape or form. Standardization is only necessary at the poorer WikiProjects, ones that have poor structures or none, and then standardization should only be used to bring that WikiProject up to speed and up to a level of that of our "featured projects". Kentucky used to be a good example of this until it was revamped recently. Utah remains a good example. Really, without discussion, there is no set standard for WikiProjects. Some may bring up the "Subproject delegation" clause, which states "Unless otherwise specified, when this project's standards and a subproject's standards conflict, this project has priority". But who's to say what's on USRD, other than maybe the browsing template, are standards? Who stated that a junction table template has to be used for all junction lists? Nothing on the page has really been discussed, until now. Perhaps it's time to begin the discussion. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 23:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Again I agree with TwinsMetsFans. I think USRoads is overriding the local projects too much. If they have a standard that is working and isn't TOO different (Texas) being a prime example. Why are we overriding it? JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
My view is this - if something works - why "fix it"? Kentucky was quite broken - 3 infobox structures was enough to call it broken. The ones I work on (MN, WI, IA and to an extent IL) had flaws themselves. IL's "flaw" though not necessary that to say the least was its infobox. but that was cleared up with some efforts. MN also had the same infobox matter - but with careful work - it was easily converted. They don't keep JCTs on the ibx - but they do have major cities. The only issue (albeit minor) was that the city lists grew way out of control. Now all four are well entrenched into the structures that USRD uses and recently I started working with JCT lists in the WI articles (only 1 so far and its US 10. My view - outside browseboxes and infoboxes - basically everything that works interactively amongst the articles - why change much more? -- master_sonTalk - Edits 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:ADHS
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why are we trying to delete this one again? It seems to continue to serve a purpose IMHO. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
History of US Roads
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I added some old history to History_of_road_transport#United_States_of_America. More is needed on the development of funding, policies, and design. I suggest creation of an article for the history of U.S. roads with much of this information, and links to the specialized existing articles. Some of the existing articles have stub History sections which could link back to this general history so as to provide a more complete description of the history. (SEWilco 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC))
Cleanup templates nominated for deletion
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
What is the thought on combining these all into one template with subpages, just like {{infobox road}}? --Holderca1 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. No need for them to all be unique per project. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 17:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not set entirely against it, but the coding behind this would be a disaster. If done right in a perfect world, no subpages would be necessary and only parameters and parser functions would be needed. The problems are that (1) each state calls their state highways different things and (2) the conventions for each state's categories vary. Yes, subpages would cover both issues, but is the effort worth it in the end? I don't believe it is, personally. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Kansas shield problem
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There may be a problem with the new, pattern-accurate Kansas shields. See commons:User talk:Cohesion. I'd like others' input. —Scott5114↗ 18:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
County highways
Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments11 people in discussion
We've discussed this a couple of times before, but discussion has always fizzled out before we've reached a true consensus.
The question: Are county highways automatically notable the same way state highways are?
It's been proposed several times that we follow something similar to WP:BIO:
Politicians:
Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.4
Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.
In otherwords, yes, state highways are automatically notable. But county highways need to actually do something to be notable. County highways that aren't notable can have a couple of sentences about them in the list article.
County highways are not automatically notable. Considering that there are hundreds of thousands of them, there is no possible way to maintain all those articles. Secondly, there is nothing more we can say about a county road than can be seen on a map. For instance, what's important about, say, "Pope County Road 6 is a road in Pope County, Minnesota that runs for two miles from Pope County 37 to Stearns County 19."? Now, County Road 34 (Ramsey County, Minnesota) is notable, but only because it is University Avenue and used to be part of both U.S. Route 52 and Minnesota State Highway 218. --Sable232 23:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't see them as automatically notable either - For WI - I put in an all-inclusive article about the County roads as this is a unique situation for such roads - but individual county routes don't really deserve their own article in WI.-- master_sonTalk - Edits 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see how most county routes are notable. Unless something really earth-shattering happened there, we don't need it really. (For example, the county route that AASHTO tested the first interstate shields on would be notable if we knew which one it was.) As for Ramsey County 34, I wouldn't count it as notable enough, only worth a mention in either the US 52 or SH 218 article (probably 218, if it was more recently routed along there). —Scott5114↗ 06:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, obviously, major county routes are notable, such as Clark County 215 is Las Vegas, which is part of a beltway (the other part is Interstate 215). —Scott5114↗ 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This of course applies to secondary state highways in Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, and any other state that uses them. --NE2 14:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
My view would be that any county route that is numbered, shielded, and part of a larger system of routes like several states have, then that route is inherently notable like state routes are. If they aren't numbered or shielded then they are not and should either be left out completely or only given a list entry. For instance an unpaved county maintained road is obviously not a article candidate and not notable. However county highways in Wisconsin would be notable and article worthy as they're paved, shielded, numbered and part of a statewide network of major arteries. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 17:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that we could say, any county road that is access controlled would be notable. Vegaswikian 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition, I would argue that any numbered county road that was formerly a state or U.S. highway is probably notable enough. –Pedriana (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with North's initial post on this issue. However, I'm not sure a non-notable county road even needs a few sentences in the list - columns for the name of the road, the termini and the direction should be enough. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 20:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Saying that all county roads are inherently notable is not sustainable policy. I don't think the greater part of WP would accept county roads as notable, since we're lucky that even state highways are accepted.
My position is this: An article on a county road would not, in the vast majority of cases, tell any more about that road than a map would. Hence, there is absolutely no reason why we should include it. --Sable232 20:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to something like this before... I believe county highways are not notable, but lists of county highways may be notable. —Rob(talk) 20:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally have no problem with lists, but since they could potentially violate WP:NOT, those may not work either. I can't make the IRC discussion, but I think what I've said here pretty uch sums my thoughts up. --Sable232 23:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Any county highway that can be described beyond what a map can show should be included with their own article. Take WP:CACR. We have a nicely developed project based on county routes that will eventually have history, description, landmark, links, etc... If not then we'll listify them. For instance all the county highways in Santa Clara county can easily satisfy their own articles. Gateman1997 02:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Exit list
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Ok, so with the exit list on the MOS, this creates a problem. As User:Matt Yeager just edited, this is for all road articles across Wikipedia now. That said...the guide right now really only applies to the United States. I'll start working on making it more international. I'll get a general guideline together for Canada and some part of Europe. It's no rush, and we've got a lot on our plate right now, so I'll be working on this for a bit. But a heads up. --MPDT / C 22:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, screw this for now. That's a lot of work and I have a lineup of Interstates that need cleaned up first. But we need to think about this. Maybe it should be renamed "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United States exit lists)". --MPDT / C 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It might be ok to leave it as it is now until somebody complains. But this is definitely something should be addressed in the future. --Polaron | Talk 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Polaron. Leave it as is, but don't go out of your way to implement it to international roads. And if anyone complains, address it then. -- NORTHtalk 23:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
First, the exit list guide has been moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists), due to some users taking issue to having a guideline in WikiProject space. All old shortcuts and redirects still work, as well as a new simpler one: WP:ELG.
Second an official IRC meeting will take place this Friday at 9PM ET/6 PT. Participation is, of course, voluntary, and all users are welcome. Several topics are on the docket:
What is this IRC thing? If you're going to discuss CR's can it be put off or done on wikipedia? Because I can't attend a Friday night meeting, I have a life outside wiki and am generally in rush hour traffic at 6 PM PST. And I'm obviously very invested in county routes, at least California's extensive system of routes. Gateman1997 06:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
California's county routes are probably not "threatened", being a fairly limited system numbered at the state level. A similar system is New Jersey's 500-series routes. On the other hand, in most states, there are at least 50 or so routes - and sometimes many more - per county, with no network of "more major" routes among them. Of course there is nothing wrong with an article about a major route like that, but many county routes are very minor roads. --NE2 07:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind that no decisions are going to be made on IRC. Likely we'll draft a solution and then present it here. For the most part, that solution will reflect what's already been discussed on-wiki. For instance, if you look above, there's already a weak consensus that individual county routes aren't notable, and should be put in a list instead. However, like NE2 said, California's system may be an exception to this. -- NORTHtalk 18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It's likely the meeting will extend a few hours after that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well as I said, rush hour. That and I've no idea what IRC is. You're all speaking Sweedish when mentioning it as far as I know. And as long as NJ, WI, and CA County Routes aren't threatened then I've no problem with imposing a few standards on the other 47 states. Most states don't have the larger state defined network of actual "highways" that these 3 have. Gateman1997 16:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies about that... in hindsight I should have stated that it was too late to change the meeting time, and there was little we could do. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
More on County Roads
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Okay. I can barely read the IRC discussion, but it looks as though non-notable county roads go in a list, correct?
Now, it looks as though Minnesota is going to be fairly simple in terms of county roads. They are done independently by each county, and the only real distinction is for CSAHs.
I've started a list in my userspace for Ramsey (figure I'll start with a small map) and that'll serve as a test mule for formatting. Now, the issue with these is the use of shields. First, all we have for generic county shields are the PNGs I made. I can try next weekend to have someone get my POS Apple computer to run Inkscape, and if it works I'll make the SVGs myself. (I'm going to do only generic shields, so "COUNTY" will be on top.) Second, MN has a unique setup with the type of shield used. In some counties (mostly urban) the blue pentagon is always used. In others, the pentagon is used for CSAHs while the white square is used for the others. Some appear to still be using the white square for all roads. The simplest way to determine it is through personal observation, otherwise a telephone call to the county might work (but I wouldn't count on finding anyone that knows). A third issue is how to deal with noncontiguous county roads. This may be an issue unique to Ramsey County though, as the lettered county roads usually have the same number along every segment. --Sable232 01:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
New newsletter discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Looks good to me. I'm sorry to see WI not included on the "notable" list but as long as CACR's and NJ 500's are ok then I'm fine with these guidelines. Gateman1997 01:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Just because Wisconsin isn't specifically mentioned alongside the two examples doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't fall into that category. -- NORTHtalk 01:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Gateman - Wisconsin's county highways IMHO only have notability as a system primarily because of the numbering - I definitely can't see an article per route unless the historic significance is there for sure. A list might be feasible - but it will take quite a bit of time - and because we would have to source it, I'd rather not see a list placed. No county route in WI is a freeway which eliminates that possibility as well. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 03:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, but let's make the U.S. section, and perhaps add Canada in there, and slowly work around the world. In fact, I'll get in contact with Canada now. --MPDT / C 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I've got a problem with this sentence: Some states or counties have no signed county highways, but do have county-maintained roads – some which have no other name than County Road 1723. These should not be confused with county highways, and are not notable, even for inclusion in a list.
What's that supposed to mean? What's the difference between county highways and county-maintained roads? --Sable232 02:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a county maintained road is a county road that isn't necessarily numbered. Gateman1997 04:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
i.e. the roads in OR and WA that the county maintains, but there is no number for. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Some states, like New Jersey and many New England states, are divided in such away that all land is part of a township, or village, or city... and roads that are not county highways are locally maintained. However, in a lot of states, any road that is not a state highway, and outside of city limits, is maintained by the county. That doesn't make it a county highway, and certainly doesn't make it notable. Keep in mind that this is a work-in-progress, and the sentence can probably be worded better. I think one of the key words in the sentence is "signed". -- NORTHtalk 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Road diagrams
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
I don't like it. It might fit in an exit list or junction list, for the states that use those, but I don't understand why it would be on the right side, like an infobox. --NE2 02:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I used the current rail route diagram box for the example because it would be pointless to make all these new templates and new images for something that might not be used (the existing template is aligned right). I could see it used in place of an exit list/junction list, but not widely used in North America for roads. It's a decent size though and would need a lot of modding for roads, and would be good for a route with a lot of text. But like I mentioned on the other talk page, we under US Roads have our system pretty much in place. But I don't know I just figure for those who don't watch WP:HWY, that I'd bring it up here. --MPDT / C 02:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
looks too much like its a subway line ;) Anyway, it might be useful for depicting interchanges and such - if a legend is provided, but I think it looks like too much. Exit lists do the job well anyway. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
On an entirely different topic, just something I noticed while looking at that sandbox. A lot of the Iowa shields you uploaded (I think it's all the 900's) have a black square in the upper left corner. :-( -- NORTHtalk 06:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that program you guys referred me to did that. I need to re-path every shield from about 825 up to 999. Haven't had the time. That's also why I haven't totally replaced the old PNGs I made. Indeed a :-( --MPDT / C 06:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that you accidentally had an extra blank text path somewhere. I had the same thing happen to me when I first started on Louisiana shields, and it was without using Commonist. It just appeared that it was cuz the black rectangle only appears after uploading, even if it's done manually. -- NORTHtalk 06:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like something that happened to me on the SD sheilds - I had an extra text object in there and it shows as a block if not converted to path. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 12:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoa. Crazy list. I'll think about whether I like that or not. :) I have wanted diagrams demonstrating in a simple figure what would normally take 50-100 words to describe. See I-290 (IL) exits 7, 13, and 15. —Rob(talk) 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Response to April 27 IRC meeting
Latest comment: 16 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion
Ah, how appropriate that I get the first word, since as far as I'm concerned, I got the last word at the meeting. Did I lose my cool? Yes. Do I regret it? God no. WP:USRD is in a state of trash. And I'm not talking about the articles. When we fought over IRC last month, one of the key things that was said was that there are no leaders. I think that's very important. Wikipedia is run by consensus, not by democracy, and certainly not by a triumvirate. Unfortunately, even though it was Rschen himself who originally made the "no leaders" claim, Rschen and Vishwin (and to a lesser extent TMF) have installed themselves as supreme dictators.
I remember saying to TwinsMetsFan in a private message when we started the Overstandardization part of the meeting, something like "Oh God, I'm frightened already." It was in response to the claims of a "movement". Surely the word was used in jest, but given the amount of opposition, it was a joke in bad taste. Fortunately, that discussion went quite well, and I think we reached a compromise that satisfied everyone.
And then we started fighting over a newsletter??? What the hell is wrong with us? (Note that I said "us", not "you". Unlike during the meeting, I'm attempting to choose my words carefully.) To reiterate what I said in the meeting, the newspaper should be the least of our worries. If it's too much work to put it out as often as we do, then put it out less often. Don't attempt to force others to do the work for you. As far as I could tell at the time, the threat of demoting WikiProjects just because they don't participate in the newsletter wasn't sarcasm, especially since it was a direct response to my question of if you wouldn't block, how would you pressure us?
Never mind that you don't really have the power to demote WikiProjects. In June 2006, I wanted to start a WikiProject for New Jersey highways, so I did. It wasn't meant to be a subproject at USRD – I barely knew that project existed, and at the time it didn't provide any guidance. It was meant to manage articles on state/county highways in New Jersey, no more, no less. And unless some sort of consensus magically occurs, USRD doesn't have any right to come along and usurp it.
Basically, here's my final word on the situation. If the leaders of this WikiProject don't clean up their act, and fast, I'm going to pull a SPUI. I'm here to write and improve articles on state highways, and if USRD and some bureaucratic newsletter starts to get in the way of that, then the project doesn't deserve my loyalty. Cleaning up your act means getting off your high horse, coming to the talk page to garner actual consensus, and stop waving your scepter around declaring arbitrary standards. Me pulling a SPUI means continuing to edit articles in the background, ignoring arbitrary standards that don't have consensus, and only coming to the project talk pages when you're about to do something truly moronic. -- NORTHtalk 09:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
OK so it seems from reading that there was agreement on NJ and CA being notable? If so good. I'm back to my regular scheduled wiki'ing. Gateman1997 16:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm Let me start at the beginning. I found the highway articles just days after the SRNC debacle was resolved. As I understand it, the SRNC issue drove a number of editors away from the state highway articles, right? Well, when I found MNSH the vast majority of articles didn't even have infoboxes. I apologize if I sound like I'm bragging, but I pretty much completed Minnesota's state highway articles. Master son then took that and upgraded everything to the new USRD standards.
So why do the state projects need to report to USRD to avoid penalty of a demotion that cannot be given? I was editing highway articles for quite some time before I even bothered to look at this page, and MNSH made a great deal of progress without anyone else's oversight. At this point, MNSH consists of only four active editors. Yet, that project is not "in a state of trash." The MNSH cleanup tag is used on a grand total of four articles. One is a MOS issue, one is because of a split proposal, and the other two are more or less format disputes. So why should we have to report to the newsletter every week? Say "We fixed the references on the MN-100 article! Yay!"? I don't see much benefit to anyone else from that. Sure, we can fix those four articles, and keep expanding others when we can. I suppose the county road situation for MN will get rolled into MNSH as well, but I'll post my thoughts on that elsewhere.
In short: Bureaucracy is not going to get things done any faster. The only thing that's going to get things done faster is editors who want to get things done. I started trying to buid up North Dakota's highway articles a while ago. I think I'll go get back to that. --Sable232 01:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I've thought carefully and discussed it with someone else, so here goes. First of all, I do need to apologize as towards the end, I did get a little annoyed and lost my temper. I shouldn't have shared the idea of demotion of projects, and that was dumb. I don't see what the deal with "movement" was, as I randomly used the word-- I blame history class for corrupting me :)
In regards to the newsletter. What's frustrated me is that we've agreed to a every 2 week delivery, but we have to rush to get it out. The problem is, it seems that I've been doing too much of the newsletter work, and we want to get other people involved (not just the same "dictators" (how you refer to us, that is)). Some have complained that only one viewpoint is represented, and want to give their input...... but none of them volunteer to help.
In regards to the actual leading thing: We're the ones who are making the decisions..... because noone else is helping us make them. A lot of editors are just concerned about their state only and don't participate in USRD. (As a side note, North, you are becoming more active in USRD, and I commend you for that). If anyone wants to help make the decisions, that is perfectly fine-- you just need to be committed and ready to carry out the decisions (even the ones taht require the mass amounts of work- such as the new cleanup decision, requiring TMF to redo all the cleanup templates). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Since you've apologized, I should as well, and rephrase what I said in my original post in this thread. I do regret using a profanity, and should have said something else. Specifically, I should have said, "I would tell you that you don't have the power to declare us inactive and demote us." What I don't regret is taking a stand against your arbitrary leadership.
I think there are two major questions that I haven't seen answered.
What's wrong with people focusing on their own states instead of USRD? From what I've seen, the single-staters are the ones doing most of the work with regards to creating articles on highways that haven't been done yet, and expanding the stubs. In a lot of ways, that's more important than the standardization that USRD-ers do.
Why do these decisions need to be made? Specifically with regards to the newsletter. The newsletter, as I see it, needs to be at the absolute bottom of our priorities list. Why? Well, to quote NE2 after someone went around and spammed all the WikiProjects with some notice about awards, "I'd prefer to write articles." The standards, whether we agree with them or not, at least have the intent of helping us with article writing/improving. The newsletter, while it may be a useful tool, does not. I think to a large extent, we've lost sight of the goal, which is to write articles for an encyclopedia.
I'd really like to get back to that goal, and am happy to do so with or without the project. That being said, this conversation should be a step in the right direction, and I'm more than willing to talk this out before I do anything drastic. -- NORTHtalk 05:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with people staying only with their own project is that they are absolutely not willing to contibute across state lines. They're not contibuting to discussions taht may likely affect them, then they complain about not having input in the decisions.
In regards to the newsletter, I believe that we need to have one. It may be a good idea to scale it down a little bit, however. As much as we'd love to have a good 3-4 articles and a full assortment of departments (member, subproject, etc.), and as much as we need one to motivate people, the problem is, it's not going to be possible for quite a while. Considering that we're currently overworking to getting it out, it's not worth doing the extra work. (But who knows? Maybe the scaling down will motivate more editors to contribute :))
The arbitrary leadership issue. The main concern is that we're typically the ones making the decisions since others aren't really contributing decisions or input. These are the three most active editors in roads as well. Unfortunately, this likely resulted from the vacuum caused by SRNC and users exiting the roads area. Some had to work harder to make sure the articles didn't go to crap. The good thing is, we're slowly coming out of this, with more editors taking part in stuff like IRC and this page discussions.
That being said, if we are being too arbitrary, please let us know. Sometimes it's hard to see it unless it's being shown to you... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The concern with arbitrary leadership is that even when others do choose to participate, i.e. at the meeting, you still try to invoke your leadership powers. "What if we told you..." Well, when you tell us things instead of discussing them, people lose their cool.
It is true that even though there aren't supposed to be any leaders, editors who are the most active have some sort of de facto leadership role. But this is just because they participate in discussions more often, and thus have a say more often. But even then, de facto leaders don't get to make unilateral decisions. Their leadership comes only from their participation in "making consensus".
I'd truly like to be one of the leaders, in fact, I think I already am one, but it seems too often I'm shut out by the dictators.
With regards to single-staters, some people refuse to contribute across state lines because they don't know anything about Missouri highways. Wikipedia is just a small-time hobby for them, and they don't have time to research highways in other states, and would rather spend the time they have writing articles on what they know rather than standardizing an article on a highway across the country they've never heard of. This should be encouraged – different strokes for different folks and all that jazz. -- NORTHtalk 08:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The single-staters can participate in USRD decisions, however, since their state is part of the United States...
We'll definitely work on our phrasing, however, as that wasn't what we were trying to convey (or rather, what I was trying to convey, as i didn't consult anyone regarding that). But tempers were going off at that point... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
(Indent Reset). I think it's all phooey. What I want to know is why USRD has become the chief project of all US Roads. There's a plausible reasoning behind it, but I created PASH never really considering it to be a part of USRD. I honestly believe that this is all ridiculous. Who gives a rats behind about the newsletter. If it ended right now, I wouldn't be missing anything. And the idea that it's being rushed at the last minute just seems bizarre to me. How can something so informal be such a stressor - so what if it takes additional time to put out a newsletter. It's not like I'm dying to see what has happened in the community.
It's frustrating to me, because I came on Wikipedia to have fun, and this crap is not having fun. This crap is called DRAMA. I've hardly contributed to USRD since the big SRNC debate because people take it far too seriously, hence creating the DRAMA.
You guys really need to get off the kick of USRD and get back to doing articles. There is too much bureaucracy, too much DRAMA, and it's making me sick. I'm not around much any more, and this is why. STOP GROWING THE BUREAUCRACY: GO BACK TO EDITING ARTICLES! --myselfalso 16:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Honestly I agree, this project is really becoming prone to bureaucracy and creeping featurism. All this effort being put into standardization, newsletters, IRC discussions and such really needs to refocused into the primary goal of this project: writing quality content for the encyclopedia. Krimpet (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to agree a little too. Out of curiosity, doesn't this wikiproject essentially just duplicate Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Highways. The only roads the project seems to deal with are various highways, be it state, interstate, U.S., county, etc... I'm sure their are a few exceptions out there but surely any exceptions can be folded into the appropriate state or the highway's article. Because I think we can all agree that non-highway roads with few exceptions aren't notable. And I've noticed that most that are, for instance Lombard Street aren't included in this wikiproject at all anyway. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 18:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The main two purposes of USRD are 1) organizing the states that do not have a WikiProject yet and 2) ensuring that the state highway WPs stay on task. But quite frankly, what is the problem with the "overstandardization"? We've barely "interfered" with PASH, and only fixed the infobox and major junctions for CASH (which isn't really USRD interfering as I am a major CASH editor). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think people are afraid of the opportunity to interfere existing with WP:USR being here. I think that once a state is on its way with their own wikiproject they don't think anything that happens at USR should apply, especially if they already have their own working established rules and guidelines. And frankly I don't think that's an unreasonable position. One project dictating rules for an article is plenty. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
But you have interfered elsewhere. I can't begin to count the number of times I've had conversations with Vishwin on IRC about the junction list. And it got particularly nasty when he added a template-style list to New Jersey Route 38 even though the NJSCR project page says to use an ELG-style list. (I might not have bothered to switch it over if he'd bothered to complete the list.) Discussion on forcing Texas to change over to INNA browsing really only took place on IRC, back when most of the project was skeptical about the idea of IRC. Please don't try to claim your hands are clean. The problem with overstandardization is that in many cases it conflicts with the pre-existing guidelines at the state project pages, and in most cases there's no consensus to standardize. -- NORTHtalk 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Northenglish stares at what just happened. -- NORTHtalk 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'll make some things very clear. Yes, at times, I may have lost my cool. As rschen said, the main two purposes of USRD are 1) organizing the states that do not have a WikiProject yet and 2) ensuring that the state highway WPs stay on task. That is one of the fires that we are trying to fight at the moment. Another one is that we do not want more SPUI-like episodes again.
In reply to the bureaucracy thing, the problem is that many users (I'm assuming) are afraid to make decisions like this. This led to the complaints that are happening right this moment. In fact, I'll relate this to the USRD vs. BAG case—the reason we were mad about them being too bureaucratical was because neither of us didn't understand each other's POV. Quite frankly, this hysteria is just like the BAG case—we aren't clearly understanding each other's POV. A solution to this is to have a nice, slow, conversation, that is not nearly as heated as this.
That's not a problem. If people are "afraid" to make a decision, then there a couple of possible explanations.
You're misreading their fear. They're not participating not because they're afraid, but because they don't care because it's not an essential decision.
They're afraid because you're scaring them. That's why you need to cool it with the supreme dictator-speak.
They're afraid because it's a controversial issue that needs to be dealt with through consensus building, not through a triumvirate making bureaucratic decisions.
In short, the current structure of the project doesn't even begin to solve your so-called program. Nor does that song, which seems to imply to me that since we didn't start the fire, all this in-fighting is inevitable, which it isn't. -- NORTHtalk 20:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what I mean. When the BAG hysteria happened, the BAG were the "supreme dictators". The source of that problem was that the two sides did not understand each other's POV, and a nice, slow conversation seemed to level it off. It is the same situation here. We could continue with this nasty debate here, or we could have a nice, civil, and cool discussion to sort out our differences. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's take a step back. Up until some misguided comments were made about the newsletter and demotion, I think everyone was in agreement. State projects have precedence over the USRD, provided that the state project exists, is active, and has a functional project page. Really, as long as that's out of the way – we've already reached a compromise on the newsletter – really, everything should be fine. So let's just take a couple of steps back and pretend this never happened, kay? -- NORTHtalk 23:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The song is intended to be funny. Which is why it's linked from Wikipedia:Road humor. "We didn;t start the fire" is part of the original song. Furthermore, it will go on and on... there will always be NIMBY debates in the road sector, environmental stuff, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 1
I see that there are several people who seem to be taking a leadership role, and that's good. However, I see things becoming more and more bureaucratic. We have to follow this, this, this and this. Screw what the state WP says, we must go with USRD. That isn't right. I don't see USRD as the master project. I see USRD as the parent - but only in the sense that it is a larger demographic. But what is the point of having separate WikiProjects if they all have to follow under USRD? Why not merge the WPs together under USRD, and call them all subProjects? We might as well, we're practically already there. --myselfalso 21:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that's the point, people don't want that unless I'm mistaken. States shouldn't have to conform to each other identically if there is consensus for a different system at the state level. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 21:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the mergeto tag placed on the PASH page. This should not happen. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject reform, WP:HWY is a tier 0 project, USRD is a tier 1, and PASH is tier 2. Yes, we should consider USRD and HWY parents. Based on continuous discussion from NORTH and others, we should get back to regular wiki editing, and cut this WP:POINT idiocy, as rschen said below. PASH and others do not have to follow USRD completely (or mostly in this case)—just one or two aspects should be the same (except the stuff established at WP:USRD/INNA). I'm sorry if I had upset anyone in any way—we just have to sort out our differences and move on. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 22:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Per V60. I donot support the merge. Diffirent states have separate regulations they all don't have to follow WP:USRD. -- JA10T · C 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
).
