Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Archive 1

Publication frequency

Have a few issues: a) How often should we publish this? b) When should we start? I'd like to see if we can get something whipped up by Saturday because of the AFD's... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The AFDs should be the cover story!  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... but then do we still need the deletion debates section for issue 1? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Actually, AFDs be cover, all others in the separate section.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 04:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay... we have 2 infoboxes so that works... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

SH shield rotation

I added a generic circle sign shield to the newsletter. We could rotate it to match the featured descendant project's SH shield. Comments?  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Distribution

Instead of transcluding the entire newsletter onto a user's talk page, we should use the Wikipedia Signpost method and only show the headlines; otherwise, the issue would take up way too much space on talk pages. This issue was discussed at NYSR soon after the release of issue 1 (a full transclusion of the issue) and resulted in a special delivery page.

Also, if need be, I can help with the distribution. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'll have to get that ready Sat. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First publication date

Could the time be pushed back a bit? This is because I have things going on on Saturday, including the Pro Bowl. Comments?  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 23:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Granted, I'm going to be watching the Pro Bowl as well, but I don't think much more has to be done for this newsletter to be released. As for the latest addition to the newsletter, those comments may be seen as canvassing; at least, that's my take. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted that last change.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 00:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that we should stick with the time. However, if we gvet behind it can be moved. If you can't distribute, someone else can fill in if needed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am free except for the Pro Bowl, so the delivery time should be around 3PM EST or so. Comments?  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 02:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, we can probably move distribution to 3 PM Eastern. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Size of the Newsletter

I'm just letting you know that my opinion is that the current format is obnoxiously huge! Could we try to size it down a bit. Here's last issue in a smaller format for example.

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 2	24 February 2007	About the Newsletter

Departments:	Features:
Project News	Notability of state highways is upheld
Deletion debates	Kansas Turnpike is now a Good Article
Featured subproject	U.S. Roads IRC channel created
Featured member	Infoboxes and Navigation subproject started
From the editors

Archives  |  Newsroom	Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Maybe do something else with the links inside, but this looks a whole lot better, in my opinion. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can include the featured SH subproject in the top, I have no problem.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 14:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  14:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's already there. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's apparent that you don't read the Wikipedia Signpost, which uses the exact same delivery format and has been for some time. As for the design above, I'm not a big fan of it. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I do read the signpost, and as a matter of fact I contribute to it. I still do not understand what you mean by "featured SH subproject." And that's OK if you do not like it. I personally think a more compact design is more economical. I have two newsletters on my userpage right now and they are cluttering it up because of their size. Maybe you can propose an alternate. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  17:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Subscription by non project participants

Hi, I want to subscribe (have to keep an eye on you lot) but I am not a project participant. Have you made allowances for that? see, for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Outreach#Non-members ... thanks and good luck! Since I recognise bits and pieces from various newsletters, including some that I've been involved in, if I can be of any technical assistance please advise! ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Lar.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 03:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the subscription list? Also I'd like to get notified via link rather than a copy transcluded, if possible... thanks! ++Lar: t/c 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

IRC discussion comes to light from Issue 005

As an editor of a college newspaper, you should refrain from editorializing in articles. The IRC discussion comes to light is not an accurate headline. It should say something to the effect that IRC benefits TfD discussion. Also, the article itself is clearly biased in support of IRC. I'm not opposed to IRC, but it sounds like a piece of PR in favor of IRC. This is clear editorializing in an article, and is not best suited for any kind of journalistic intent, as is evidenced here. If you want to editorialize about it, then write a commentary or editorial. --myselfalso 15:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you were involved with the newsletter creation, you could have written the piece. This is not necessarily a NPOV newsletter. These are the opinions of the people who create it. If you wish to have your opinion included, then volunteer to edit it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would if I had the time to do so. This should be an NPOV newsletter, as it is the newsletter of USRD. --myselfalso 01:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Delivery of link rather than content

Please again consider allowing delivery via link rather than via the entire content. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

and again! I just got one of these a week ago didn't I?? Please? ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just the link, or in a box? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a statement saying in effect "there's a new newsletter, here's a link to it" as for example here: [1] ... Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 04:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Specific news by region

I was thinking of putting a section on recent major edits and new articles created for the Northeast region (and hopefully other people would create something similar for other regions). Is this type of thing suitable for the newsletter? An sample of what I'm talkiing about:

• Massachusetts: In the last two weeks, four new MA route articles were created - Routes 58, 106, and 139 by User:Erasmussen and Route 53 by User:Sswonk. Also, User:Schzmo has added an exit list to the Interstate 391 article.

• New York: A route description for the PA to Buffalo section of the long New York State Route 5 was recently added by User:71.126.11.92. User:AdkNorth has also added a route description to the New York State Route 86 article but needs a little formatting help. In other news, the very detailed route description for U.S. Route 9 in New York continues to be improved by User:Daniel Case and a junction table has been added by User:Vishwin60 to U.S. Route 20A (New York).

--Polaron | Talk 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If we do this, it has to be across the board. I'm thinking about restructuring the newsletter, as there is little participation and most of everything is being crammed in at the last second :( --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll get more participation of we allow for something like this and not just the "big" news stories. --Polaron | Talk 18:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Of course one or two big stories should still be included, but this is what we should do instead of featured project, which is not working out. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A regional update with a few main stories sounds great. --Bdj95 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Scaling down?

Addressing concerns recently voiced at WT:USRD, I'm considering scaling down the newsletter. With only three regular editors, it is becoming a pain to try and get it out every 2 weeks. Here is what I am proposing:

• Only 2 major stories, however one is passable
• Only having about 4-5 states giving updates. This means that the updates are now optional, but if anything goes on at your project that is exciting, please share it with us. (Ideally, we should hear from your project every few months).
• Merge deletion debates and project news, as well as AID (forget the template, just list the article).
• Cut the new members thing.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

After an edit conflict, it turns out we're actually in agreement. I'm going to post what I originally wrote for the above section anyway.

As long as it's not "across" the board - meaning no penalty for states that don't write anything - I don't have a problem with it. It's true that it's only 2 sentences, but it's still something I have to set aside my to-do list to do. Not to mention, sometimes there might not even be two sentences to write. Since I put out the last NJSCR newsletter, I can think of exactly one thing worthy of note: the change to Circle sign X.svg. And that would be better suited for a "national story", since the changeover affected several states as well. -- NORTH ^talk 07:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Delivery

Is it possible to have the newsletter delivered to a subpage of a user talk page? —Michael 12:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just link it to that page. My copy of the newsletter is always delivered to a user subpage, note that my regular talk page does not nave any USRD newsletters on it at all. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 16:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How would I do that?—Michael 15:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[[User talk:MichaelR./subpage name|MichaelR.]] V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do I put that link?—Michael 14:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Please put your name in a section if you want it to be substed or transcluded on that talk page. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki890...

I would like to be an editor. I have been an editor for my classroom newspaper and I have the best skills at editing in my age in Washington. Contact me it you will let me in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki890 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The New Look

Sorry I'm late on replying to these, but I do like the new look of the Project Roads Newsletter. I wish I had something more to add. I'd mention the completion of Pinellas County Road 501, but that wouldn't interest too many people outside of the Tampa Bay Metro Area. ---- DanTD 02:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions...

Maybe we should have vivid pictures to go with the articles and maybe a whole new type of format. Also, I think every once in a while a guest editor could help out.

-Wiki1997 01:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The newsletter just keeps getting better and better!

Pictures... of what? Anyone is welcome to help out with the newsletter, but one should be on IRC so that the newsletter can be coordinated. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures relating to a certain route shield. Like, we could start with each shield for the Interstate (excluding decommisioned and spurs) and then U.S. Routes (excluding decommisioned and spurs), and finally State Routes (excluding decommisioned and County Routes, starting with Alabama). — ComputerGuy890100 04:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC) (Was Wiki1997)

Changes

[2] I disagree with this edit, and will not support the newsletter going out this way. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; WTF was wrong with the existing format? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how distribution works, so I'll ask the question, what's the difference? --Son (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

What do I need to do to receive the newsletter?--Sweet100000 (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List under your preferred delivery method. "Subst" means the delivery page will be substed to your talk page (you can see what I mean my looking at mine), "Transclude" is the same thing except with no substitution, and "Notify" is a simple link to the entire issue. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes, part two

While we're at least considering some changes, here's one that really should be made - our delivery methods. Currently, we have Subst, Transclude, and Link; because of these methods, we're also forced to make an unnecessary delivery page for each issue. Subst and Link are fine; it's transclude that forces the creation of the delivery pages.

I propose that we replace the Transclude option with a template that would automatically update for each issue (basically {{Signpost-subscription}} except for USRD). We would then no longer need to use a separate delivery page for every issue, as a single delivery page could then just be updated for each issue then substed on the user's talk page. This change would have no visible effect on those with subst or link options; it would only affect the few that have transclude for their delivery method. For those with transclude, they could be given subst for the upcoming issue with a link to the new template (name TBD), or switched over to the new template immediately.

Unless anyone can come up with a good reason to retain the transclude method (the only conceivable one I can think of would be cleaner code on the talk page but, again, users who have problems with substed code could use the proposed updating template), the new, multi-use delivery page and the updating template option should be enacted as soon as possible. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 10:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. The ones that wanted transclusion could just watch the template page for the updates, or just look at their userpage or anywhere they have trancluded the template. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 20:53, 30 November 2007 (GMT)

Leaderboard section suggestion

I think a good idea in addition to having the top 10 that we currently have, is to have a top 5 most improved projects. This could either be judged by most improved Ω or work, or have a list for both since Ω would favor the smaller projects and work would favor larger projects. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely be in favor of either both or by total work, since (and this is a "dilemma" I've had in my mind for some time) 10 WW points in one state could be the equivalent of one in another - or, in other words, in smaller states, one less WW point has the same effect on the relative wikiwork of that state that 10 less does in larger states. Thus it's much, much easier to lower the relative wikiwork of a state like Alaska than it is for larger ones like Texas, Pennsylvania or New York. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to account for is if a project creates new articles. For example, a project could create a new article and bring it up to B-class, bring 3 start-class articles up to B-class and the difference in work would be zero, but in actuality they did do something. So for doing the difference calculation for work, for every new article created during that time span, 5 should be added to the previous WW. So for this example, say the previous month, they had a WW of 1,000. So the calculation of how much work would be 1,000 (previous month) + 5 x 1 (number of new articles) - 1,000 (current month) = 5 (WW done in that month). --Holderca1 ^talk 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For those curious, here are those top 5 lists for the last newsletter period:

Rank	State	ω
1	Michigan	128
2	Connecticut	64
2	New York	64
4	New Jersey	51
5	Texas	44

Rank	State	Ω
1	Michigan	0.659
2	Connecticut	0.306
3	Utah	0.192
4	New Jersey	0.189
5	New York	0.104

--Holderca1 ^talk 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting breakdown on a number of levels. I'll push for it to be added to the next newsletter (even if I end up being the one doing the calculations) because, to me anyway, this is a better look at the monthly progress of USRD (and subprojects) than what we have now. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind doing the calcs, I have it set up in an excel spreadsheet already anyway. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. In that case, I see no reason why this shouldn't be included in the next issue. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What date each month do we close out for the leaderboard? The numbers are up-to-date and I can provide the results fairly quickly. Also, as I really got to thinking about the whole leaderboard thing should be taken with a grain of salt, not only do some states have a lot more highways than others, but longer as well. As I was doing the junction list for U.S. Route 377 in Texas, I was thinking, man, editors of Rhode Island highways don't have to do this crap. Anyway, it's fun, I get more out of inching Texas past states with a lot less highways than the hope of actually making it to the top of it anytime soon. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I hear you there. Fortunately in my/NYSR's case, every state route over 100 miles long in New York is now at B-Class, so the long junction lists and lengthy route descriptions should be in the rear-view mirror. But I definitely understand the feeling. As for the date...I can't remember how they do it, but I think they just closed it out the night before publication. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree wholeheartedly about how this should all be taken with a grain of salt. For me personally, the motivation to edit comes from the massive amount of stubs that still exist in New York - especially when those stubs are on routes whose articles really shouldn't be stubby. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rank	State	ω		Rank	State	Ω
1	Texas	120		1	Michigan	0.380
2	New York	88		2	Utah	0.258
3	Connecticut	82		3	Vermont	0.208
4	Michigan	72		4	Iowa	0.202
5	Wisconsin	28		5	Texas	0.191

Here are the numbers for the past month. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers adjusted for the nationwide update used for the newsletter. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaderboard part 2

For the newsletter, we're considering only putting states on the leaderboard. Are there any objections to this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a periodic district/territories leaderboard so we can take a peek how those areas are doing once in a while? --Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, otherwise you would have Guam with its one B-class article at the top. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the territorial task force goes through (WT:USRD/SUB), these stats would be collected into it, and you'd just have one 'territories' entry on the board, and it would be listed as a national project. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

True on that, but maybe even then, the occasional breakdown, maybe quarterly, so show where the territories individually are at in the scheme of things. Just a thought. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

How is this newsletter delivered? I currently have an approved bot which delivers newsletters. If you would like, I can have it deliver it for you. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Article

Article on Ohio State Route 732 has been expanded. 14:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Marqqq —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marqqq (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Current

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Current and updated it with June 2008's newsletter (the most recent one I could find). The page was created so that Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Newsletters doesn't have to be continuously updated. If the project plans to start with new newsletters, just paste the entire newsletter on this page and it will update it on the main newsletters' page. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Help plan a new software feature for easy subscription to newsletters

We are developing a MediaWiki extension that will enable users to subscribe to community newsletters much more easily. We are very excited to hear your feedback on the features we have planned. Feel free to share your thoughts here. - Tinaj1234 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)