User talk:Morriswa/Archives/2012/April

Morriswa's Archives
Userpage • Contributions

2010: April • May

2011: September • December

2012: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

2013: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

2014: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

2015: January • February • March • May • June • September • October • November

2016: March • April • May • June • July • September • November • December

2017: January • February • April • June • July • August • December

2018: January • February • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

2019: January • February • March • May • June • July • August • September • November

2020: January • March • April • July • August • September • October • November • December

2021: February •

Undated

STiki

I read the Wikipedia welcome page and the STiki page. I still don't understand: what was wrong with my last Gregorian chant edit? Please help a newcomer. --Apinksuzy (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

Please read WP:R2D; do not fix links to redirects that are not broken. --Rschen7754 01:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed most, if not all, of them to conform with pre-existing formats. Allen (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter; you're not supposed to do that. --Rschen7754 01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I know it "doesn't matter", but it doesn't make sense. Allen (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If the edit doesn't fix something visually, it just clogs up watch lists for very little. If you're combining that editing with other stuff, even if you're making a series of edits and apply the script in one edit while copy editing in another. Imzadi 1979 → 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That, and it takes up space on the servers (with the extra revision) for no good reason. --Rschen7754 02:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Signatures

Hi. People are getting the two of us confused. Could you perhaps use a signature that includes your username in some respect, like "Allen (Morriswa; talk)"? I understand fully your wanting to keep our mutual name in your signature... Thanks very much! Allens (talk | contribs) 01:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe that anyone would confuse me with someone else.

I can change it after this message.

Thanks! Allens (talk | contribs) 01:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to tell me what kind of experiences you are having?

Well, see User_talk:Jac16888#Sorry_if_I.27ve_been_a_bit_too_hasty... for one instance. There's been at least one other IIRC - I think it was related to the GOCE, but I'd have to dig a bit to locate it. Allens (talk | contribs) 01:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, how long have you been on Wikipedia? I never copied anyone. I just wanted to be known by my middle name. Allen (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been around since 2005 (and have on and off used Allens online since 1999 or so), although I wasn't actively editing that much until 2011. I understand fully wanting to be known by your middle name - I actually changed my legal full name from Ed Allen Smith to Allen Watkins Smith to make it easier to use my (formerly middle) name. I'm certainly not saying you're trying to copy me, or that you shouldn't be able to have "Allen" as a part of your signature! (BTW, speaking of name-changes, I note that the username WAllenM - if I'm guessing correctly as to the rest of your name - isn't taken, if you ever wanted to change usernames so that "Allen" was more of a part of yours; that way, WAllenM would show up on watchlists, etc. Sort of the electronic version of what I did with my legal name...) Allens (talk | contribs) 01:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Allen, thank you for clearing that up. I don't like my first name, but it is so much of a hassle to get it changed, that I just used my middle name. I thought I had been on Wikipedia since 2006, but supposedly, my first edit wasn't until 2008. I don't understand that.

Anyway, I hope you get a kick out of what I did to my signature. By the way, why did you break my reply into pieces (and "wrapped" it around your reply)? The Editor Formerly Known as "Allen" (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh! Yes, I do get a kick out of it! Very creative! Dunno on the question regarding first-edit dates; I've never gotten into the innards of the MediaWiki programming. Sorry if my breaking your reply into pieces was a problem - I was simply trying to communicate better by making it easier to see what was a response to what; I'm used to doing it that way from what one might call old-style emails and USENET (back when the latter was operational). Allens (talk | contribs) 02:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never used USENET or "old-style emails", so I wouldn't understand.

Anyway, thank you for attempting to answer my other question on your talk page. The Editor Formerly Known as "Allen" (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, Morriswa, you could take a page out of the playbooks of Laserbrain or Pigsonthewing and change the link to read "Allen (Morriswa)". That way your name and account name are linked, and it disambiguates you from Allens, which is his account name. Being "formerly known as" still confuses the issue . Just a thought. Imzadi 1979 → 02:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, the thought did occur to me that this would be too confusing. I don't know who or what "Laserbrain" or "Pigsonthewing" are, but I'm going to go change it right now. The Editor Formerly Known as "Allen" (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

See Laser brain (talk · contribs) or Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) and their signatures. Imzadi 1979 → 03:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Tagging for disambiguation

I'd like to suggest that you ake the 30 seconds to fix something instead of tagging it. It should be obvious that the Sheridan Township there is in Calhoun County since 1) M-199 is only in Calhoun County and 2) the link is DAB-ed (that's wikispeak for disambiguated) in the junction list. As for the black top link, common words like that can just have their links removed. Imzadi 1979 → 03:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to George Holt Thomas, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

A Google search for "Dick Farman" Aircraft produces 2370 hits, for "Richard Farman" aircraft 1300 hits. I rest my case and would suggest you yourself might be "the vandal"? Eddaido (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Morriswa. You have new messages at Narutolovehinata5's talk page.
Message added 01:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I believe you were mistaken. You must have warned me by mistake instead of the actual vandal. It was probably a test edit anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages

[1] is not correct; only the state-detail pages get tagged with the state WikiProjects. Furthermore, it's a waste of time to be obsessing over this sort of thing; what matters is what is in mainspace. --Rschen7754 02:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I will go through the talk pages and remove the state WikiProjects. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Again with [2] - I-20 has most, if not all, of its states in state-detail articles. --Rschen7754 01:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And? Was that not a constructive edit? I thought I was doing it the correct way. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Interstate 20 in Texas exists as a separate article, so I-20 should not be tagged as part of TX. --Rschen7754 01:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't put {{WikiProject Texas}} on the page. I just added the states to the pre-existing template. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Which you're not supposed to do, either, if the state-detail page exists. --Rschen7754 01:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. Should I correct any other mistakes I've made?

By the way, how do redirect articles and redirect talk pages play into this issue?

I really want to apologize for this. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind: the Michigan task force of USRD is considered a task force for the Michigan project. (Maryland is the same way as well.) We've actually got a proposal that I made that would tag our articles for the state projects using our banner. In other words, adding |state=MI to the USRD banner would also add the article to WikiProject Michigan. You might want to hold off to see what happens since that could have the effect of tagging all of the articles just by updating the template itself. Imzadi 1979 → 11:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Something else I should warn you: most states don't follow our importance ratings. You have to think of the importance to the state as a whole, versus the importances to the highway system in that state. Also, some state projects don't regularly tag highway articles, and honestly, USRD has a bit of a tension against tagging them. We won't remove the state project banners, but we don't go out of our way to add them. To put it bluntly, the members of the state projects do jack shit to help our articles most of the time unless they are also members of USRD. This situation about tagging will likely change if our banner if modified. We've already added a parameter to allow the importance for the state TFs to be different than for USRD. (The NY subproject has different importance ratings than what USRD assigns already; the idea is that a highway could be more important to NY as a state than to the US as a country.) Should our banner tag for the state projects, we will have another parameter that will allow the Michigan project to have a different importance than the Michigan TF than USRD if needed. Imzadi 1979 → 11:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

State-specific articles and wikiproject banners

Hold up a moment! I-8 doesn't have state-detail articles anymore. (We merged the two together because of the "three-state rule"). In other cases, it's appropriate for the state projects to tag the national article if there aren't state-detail articles. For instance, I-15 should be tagged for Idaho and Montana because there isn't an Interstate 15 in Idaho nor an Interstate 15 in Montana as a separate article. Oh, and if you're removing all of the banners but one or two, remove the banner shell so that the remaining banners aren't collapsed. We typically only collapse for three or more, but not for one or two. Imzadi 1979 → 11:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason that Interstate 15 gets tagged for ID and MT is that the national article kinda is the state-detail article. That's where Interstate 15 in Idaho redirects for now. Once a proper article is created, then we can detag/retag as needed. Imzadi 1979 → 11:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I just got home from work a little bit ago, so I can talk for a little bit.

I am a little confused by this issue. I hope you can see that my edits were well intentioned. Can you put it a little clearer for me?

Are there any other simplistic editing that the project needs? I want to do more, but -- as you can see -- I'm not at that level, yet. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You should focus on content creation, really. We have a few thousand stubs. Pick one, go to Google Maps, write a description, and then cite it. That would be helpful. --Rschen7754 22:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. You can write a very good article with access to Google Maps and a recent paper map or atlas. I have a small box full of maps I requested from the various state DOTs and their counterparts in Canada. Use Google (or Yahoo! or Bing) Maps to generate driving directions from one terminus to the other one. Put the map into Satellite view, and click the icon to get the URL for that set of directions (in Google it looks like a link of chain). That's the URL you'll paste into {{google maps}}, {{yahoo maps}} or {{bing maps}}. Now start at the southern or western terminus, and cross-referencing with the paper map (which could also be the appropriate page of a Rand McNally Atlas), start writing a description of the route the highway takes. The online map will let you get specific street names as needed, and it will give you a visual picture of the environment around the roadway. Does it pass through desert, forest, fields, urban/suburban environments? The paper map acts as a check; in case of a discrepancy between the two in terms of routings, go with the paper DOT map and adjust how the online mapping service routes its directions. The section doesn't need to go into too much detail. When you're done, make sure that your footnotes are at the end of each paragraph of the section, and save.

If you have access to old maps (GDOT has them online, for instance), you can work on a history section. Find the first map that shows your subject highway in its current location. If a highway first appears on a map in 1934, and it wasn't there in 1933, it's valid to write that the highway was built or added to the system in between those two maps' publication dates. Cite that sentence to both maps; in that example use a footnote for the 1933 and a footnote for 1934. Now keep looking forward in time through the maps and note any extensions, truncations or major realignments. If this example road was extended in 1945, the map for 1945 (assuming it was published before the change) should show it before the extension and the 1946 map would show it after. Note the change in your article, and cite to the '45 and '46 maps. If there are multiple maps published a year (Michigan had April and October issues for many years), you might be able to narrow down the timeframe better.

Another option to write a history is to search for news articles on http://news.google.com/ or newspaper archives through your local library. These are actually better sources to use because they can give you exact opening and construction dates, but with paywalls and other impediments, they aren't always the best. The Argus-Press in Owosso, Michigan, ran AP newswire stories about freeway openings all over the state, so I've been able to cite openings that way, even though Owosso is off the freeways in the state; Google has archived the old issues for that paper even as the bigger papers are locked up behind paywalls.

As for the junction list section, just build a table based on the best sources. DOT documents are usually more precise (two- or three-decimal precision) than the online mapping services on computing the mileposts, but if needed, just leave the MPs off initially. If an article has one or none of the Big Three (route description, history, junction list), it's Stub-Class. If it has two of the sections, it's Start-Class. If it has all three, then it's at least a C-Class article. B-Class requires the sections to be each fairly complete and pretty well referenced. If you can generate the RD and the JL in an article that lacks them, you've got a Start, and that's easy to do with just online sources and either the recent paper DOT map (which might even be online) or a recent Rand McNally atlas. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Imzadi1979, you are a genius! I will take this wonderful information and try to implement it. As you probably already figured, it won't be overnight that I will be a great road article editing expert. I will do my best, and rely on you guys to help guide me along.

If there is any other points that you want to mention, please feel free. In fact, I think stuff like this should be on the WikiProject, for new members (or new editors or -- as in my case -- for members that are lacking in the editing knowledge, but want to contribute). Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Something to remember in citing older maps: most states' DOTs changed to their current names in the 1970s. Taking Michigan as an example, it was the Michigan State Highway Department from its formation in 1905 until some time in the 1960s. Then it was the Michigan Department of State Highways. In 1973, the state merged in other departments, and created the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation, shortening that name to the present one in 1978. When noting the publisher of any old Michigan map, I have to keep this in mind so that I'm not using the wrong name. (Most maps have the publisher listed anyway, but keep that in mind.)

Another idea to keep in mind for writing RD sections is that you can use travel guide books. There the Hunts' Guide to Michigan's Upper Peninsula that I use for UP articles, and I've found other books for the LP. I will use them to cite facts (and sometimes opinions) on landmarks along the route that wouldn't be listed on the map. In cases where a specific sentence or two is cited to a guide book, the last sentence cited to the map(s) gets the map footnote(s) before the sentences that get the guide book footnote. In other words, each time you switch sources, plop the footnotes in place.

To find photos, if you're not close enough to take them yourself, use http://images.google.com/ and search for your subject. I use the Advanced Search option to search for photos licensed for commercial reuse and modification. I also search Flickr, using all of the Creative Commons options in its Advanced Search. With Flickr though, if you find something good that's not properly licensed, you can contact the uploader and ask to see if they'll relicense it. If/once the Flickr photo is licensed as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (not -NC or -ND) you can use http://toolserver.org/%7Emagnus/flickr2commons.php to transfer the photo to Commons. I've also used Panoramio to find photos, or contacted MDOT's photo lab. (MDOT took some photos of M-6 while it was being built, and they were gracious enough to release them into the public domain for use in the article.) Photos are a bit of a luxury at the lower assessment classes, but basically required for the upper levels. (CC-BY is shorthand for Creative Commons with attribution. The -SA is "Share Alike" meaning any derivatives have to be licensed the same way. -NC is a restriction for non-commercial use and -ND means no derivatives; Wikimedia sites can't accept photos with restrictions against commercial use or derivatives.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't see that you had replied.

Thanks for the tips. I didn't know that travel books could be used. Also, thanks for the tips for Flicker image transfer. I may have heard that before, but it was so long ago.

I am currently staying in Grovetown, Georgia, which is near the eastern terminus of Georgia State Route 223, contains the western terminus of Georgia State Route 388, and is near the southern terminus of Georgia State Route 383. Those are the 3 SRs that I have been working on lately. If I get some time, maybe I can take some photos. Google didn't show anything, except for some stuff on Flicker, but I haven't been able to get the owner to let me use them. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind about the portal links in articles: we don't put more general ones where a specific one suffices. Since the California, Michigan, New York and Washington portals are all subportals of the national one, if an article is about a roadway that's only in one state, it only needs the one portal box. Those four are also subportals of the specific state portals. In other words, a Michigan highway only gets a link to Portal:Michigan Highways and not Portal:U.S. Roads and Portal:Michigan. Now something like US 131 that crosses into Indiana gets portal links for Indiana, US Roads and Michigan Highways because Indiana doesn't have its own roads portal. I haven't added the Detroit portal link to any articles yet, but I will when I get around to cleaning up the articles for highways that run through that area. Yeah, I know it's a lot of "rules" to remember. Imzadi 1979 → 11:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Pirate Party of Canada

Hi, you put two disambiguous tags on this article but did not leave an explaination. What were the problems? --Wilson (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

On the above page, it had links to "medical patent" & "Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada", which are both disambiguation pages. If you could modify the links to point to the actual topics, that would be preferred. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

STiki: A new version and a thank you!

Greetings Morriswa. As the developer of the STiki anti-vandal tool, I would like to thank you for recent and non-trivial use of my software. Whether you just tried out the tool briefly or have been a long-term participant, I appreciate your efforts (as I am sure does the entire Wikipedia community)!

I write to inform you of a new version of the software (link goes to list of new features). This version addresses multiple long-term issues that I am happy to put behind us. Try it out! Provide some feedback!

The STiki project is also always seeking collaborators. In particular, we are seeking non-technical colleagues. Tasks like publicity, talk-page maintenance, advertisement, and barn-star distribution are a burden to technical development. If you are interested, write me at my talk page or STiki's talk page.

As STiki approaches two significant thresholds: (1) 100,000 revert actions and (2) 400 unique users -- I hope to have your support in continuing the efficient fight against unconstructive editing. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations and References

So, you were looking for some guidance on Wikipedia:Citing sources. <ref>your citation</ref> creates the little reference number in the wikitext. {{reflist}} is where the stuff at your citation (above) gets put, normally in a References section. The easy way to make sure a bunch of useful stuff gets used in your citation is to use Wikipedia:Citation templates and/or Wikipedia:Citation tools. That's a bunch of reading for you, but I think it all explains how to do citations. Feel free to drop me a line if that stuff isn't clear enough. Josh Parris 13:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand how to cite; the main question is, "Where do I find the sources to cite, especially when Google doesn't help?" Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Resources any help? Josh Parris 00:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner. I used the page and some links, but they haven't gotten me any closer to what I asked.

I am trying to edit Interstate, U.S. Highway, and state route articles, but I need sources. Google doesn't seem to have stuff for some roads. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There's more to researching than Google and the Internet. For Michigan highways, one of my best resources has been the Library of Michigan, and I've yet to tap the MDOT Library there in Lansing. Various large universities or state-run libraries should be helpful in obtaining dead-tree (i.e. paper) resources. Imzadi 1979 → 00:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know there is more than that. Even if you just use the Internet, there is Bing, Ask, etc. Also, there are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of other sites out there that could help me, but I don't know what they are, or I don't know where to go on the sites. And don't get me started on GDOT's page (see earlier conversations on Georgia state routes).

As for "dead-tree sources", where could I go. I'm in the town of Grovetown, Georgia (just west of Augusta, Georgia & just northwest of Fort Gordon). I don't think there is a library here in town (I'll have to look). Do you think Fort Gordon's library might help?

In case you were wondering, I haven't forgotten the wonderful, helpful tips you gave me. This week, I've been working slightly longer hours, so I haven't had as much time to be online to do any research. Just bear with me. Next week, I shift to working 9PM-7AM! I might have more time. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer, but some of the sources you seek might only be in the bigger libraries. The Peter White Public Library here in Marquette, Michigan, has vertical files with newspaper clippings from the local papers that were beneficial, so that isn't to say that smaller libraries can't be helpful. I'd google to find the libraries in your area, and then see if you can't search their card catalogs online to find stuff. Michigan has a unified search system called MeLCat for the Michigan eLibrary, which makes it very easy to do interlibrary loan requests in the state. There's also http://www.worldcat.org/ which links various library catalogs around the world. (I use that a lot just to add ISBN numbers, publishers, locations and stuff to partially completed citations as well.) Just search for various terms, sometimes the more general the better. You might find tour guides that will discuss driving tours of an area, especially if it's considered scenic. Many libraries offer newspaper databases, so you may be able to search for specific articles that way. Either way, libraries are you friend in these types of research endeavors. Imzadi 1979 → 01:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the GDOT archive of their old maps: http://www.dot.state.ga.us/maps/Pages/StateMaps.aspx . They have maps back to 1920 there. Enjoy! Imzadi 1979 → 12:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I-41

We have some semi-reliable sources that WisDOT is asking for the I-55 designation to be extended rather than calling it I-41. I think you might have jumped the gun a bit since we don't have a confirmed intent to renumber that section of US 41 in Wisconsin that's part of a new Intestate with that number. Imzadi 1979 → 02:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean anything bad by this. I just see more information on Wikipedia about I-41, than I do about I-55 in Wisconsin. If this is the case, shouldn't most, if not all of the I-41 pages refer, if not redirect, to I-55? Also, shouldn't there be more information about I-55 in Wisconsin than a little blurb? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No number has been officially picked. As it stands now, the US 41 in WI article can cover the roadway until an official number has been picked and we have to update and change things. We need to tread very carefully with future Interstates. Also, the "Interstate X in Y" redirects to another article only need to be created if we're using something like {{jct|state=WI|I|41}}. If that isn't in use, the redirect is pointless. Imzadi 1979 → 02:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest though for the near term that you stick to article writing on highways in a specific area. Pick a state or two and stick to them for a while. Continue to get your feet wet in article writing. In the realm of priorities, wikiproject banner tags on talk pages and missing, unused redirects rank lower than short stub articles that need expansion. Leave some of the "paperwork" and "administration" of the wikiproject to others for now and get the articles in better shape. Look, back in 2006 and 2007, I was creating stubs for Michigan left and right to make sure that every state highway had an article. Those stubs sucked. I'm just now digging out of some of that initial rush. Along the way, I learned how to write well enough that Whitefish Bay Scenic Byway, an article that didn't exist last week, is sitting in the queue at WP:GAN. I wish that several years ago that I would have stuck with a couple articles long enough to figure out good writing and research practices. There are still articles left to create and write, like U.S. Route 25 in Michigan and U.S. Route 33 in Michigan along the lines of U.S. Route 16 in Michigan, and I will get to them. I would rather write them when there's a chance to make something Good instead of mediocre. GDOT has its old highway maps online for free, and that's a tremendous resource. I had to pay to get old maps scanned by the Library of Michigan down in Lansing. I've bought copies of books that the libraries didn't have, or that I'd have continuously check out for my work. With those freely available maps, you can write out history sections in addition to an RD and JL section, something that's not been easy for some states. Check out where Georgia ranks on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/States, and remember that in terms of the Ω (relative WikiWork) numbr, lower is better. Imzadi 1979 → 03:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

North Carolina/South Carolina border dispute

Please look here. I didn't add anything about the possibility of that store or anything else possibly ending up in another state, but it might be time to consider doing that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Good faith revert"

Regarding this edit, I don't think an edit summary of "Good faith revert of edit" is helpful. It's not very specific, so it's not clear to the original editor why you're reverting it. A summary like, "Removing uncited opinion" would be more clear. I would go with "Removing opinion lacking citation; please feel free to re-add with a citation to a reliable source." Also, the phrase "Good faith revert" a bit confusing. It suggests that your revert is made in good faith, which is unnecessary as hopefully your fellow edits are all assuming good faith. I think you mean that you assuming good faith on the part of the original editor, but it doesn't really help. If someone suspects that you suspect that the original edit was not in good faith, claiming so isn't likely to change anyone's minds. It's more clear to just omit the bit about good faith and explain the problem and ideally how the edit might be improved. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion. I have recently started using STiki, a program that helps to revert vandalism and good faith edits (those that aren't vandalism, but still aren't constructive edits). I'd have to investigate whether the edit summary can be changed. I also think that the program should tell on your talk page what the change was. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Morriswa and Alan De Smet I was just passing by so thought of giving my comment (hope u wont mind) I have made a large number of reverts using STiki. First The above edit is correct to be reverted, although Morriswa could have pasted a relevant template on the users talk page but then the editor was an IP and so must not be familiar with our policies like wp:AGF etc , as the edit has been removed any reasonable person should suspect that there was something wrong in the first place thats why the edit was reverted, so will the IP. also the IP editors (often) know nothing about page history/edit summary so its of not of much use. Even then if its needed Morriswa you can of course change the Edit summary while editing. Just change the text on the bottom left box. (you may need to click on the Tab Good Faith) You can click the revert button after changing the edit summary, that way the purpose will be solved, feel free to discuss any issues with me about it, thanks and regards -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:MICH and WP:MISH

In short: we don't add the banner for WikiProject Michigan (WP:MICH) to articles for the Michigan State Highways TF (WP:MISH). That's been the procedure for several years now. The same holds for WikiProject Maryland and the MD highways TF. Imzadi 1979 → 22:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Some useful tasks for USRD

New article patrol

If you're looking for something useful to do for the project, every day I check a short list of logs created by a bot.

• User:AlexNewArtBot/HighwaysSearchResult: look to see if any new highway articles have been created that should receive banner tags. Put {{HWY}} with the appropriate continent's task force for articles about highways or major roads outside of the US, Canada or the UK. Articles on city streets don't get tagged for HWY.
• User:AlexNewArtBot/USRoadsSearchResult: same basic log file, but the emphasis is on the US in its search parameters. In both cases though, you'll find that a lot of the articles don't fit under any of the roads projects. (the search term "road" is contained in the words "broadcast" and "broadcaster" so we get a lot of TV-related articles to appear for instance.
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Highways articles by quality log: check to see if anyone has reassessed an article for HWY incorrectly, or removed it from the scope of the project. HWY assessments tend to follow the USRD rules: Stub=0 or 1, Start=2, C/B=3 of the "Big Three", but the sections may or may not have the exact same names so use your judgement.
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/U.S. road transport articles by quality log‎: check that USRD articles haven't been reassessed incorrectly. Remember that articles on city streets, even if they are part of a longer highway, are WP:USST. (People get confused and think US Roads deals with all roads, including streets, even though that name was picked because US Highways was taken by the then-project, now task force.)

When you do find a legitimate new article for USRD, look through it. See if it has a map and an infobox; if not, add |needs-map=yes and |needs-infobox=yes to the banner on its talk page. Check to see if it has a See also section with the portal links. If not, add them! If it has a See also section with links, make sure none of the links are already used in the body of the article; if so, remove them. Look through to make sure that US measurements (usually these are miles for lengths) have metric conversions and add them if missing. Look at the date formats in the article: if the dates for US highway articles aren't in Month DD, YYYY, format, switch them. (In the US, only military articles should be in DD Month YYYY format.) If the dates in references aren't in Month DD, YYYY, format or ISO (YYYY-MM-DD, yes with leading zeroes on months and days), fix them. (I try to discourage people from using the ISO format in citations; it's allowed under the MOS, but it's still not a good practice in my book.)

Another somewhat quick cleanup task for new articles is to put all of the references into a consistent format with full information. What I do is make sure that each citation is in the appropriate template. (Use the nice ones specific to Google/Yahoo/Bing Maps over just {{cite map}} because it adds the correct cartography information, etc.) Make sure that authors, dates, access dates, titles, publishers, cartographers and works are all present as needed. For books and journals/magazines, I try to look up the ISBN or ISSN number from http://www.worldcat.org or substitute the OCLC number. (Then readers can use the number to search libraries online faster to locate a copy of the source if they want.) Try to make sure that the article doesn't wikilink the same thing in multiple citations. (For example, a Michigan article might use six different maps published by the Michigan State Highway Department, but only the first footnote will/should have a wikilink to MSHD; anything more is WP:OVERLINKing.) The last thing that I'll check is for missing non-breaking spaces. If you can help put an article's foundation in order early , it helps to keep an article in order.

KML files

Long story short, there was a long debate about inserting geographic coordinates into articles on highways/roads. USRD's position is that we won't use them, and instead we will use KML files. Basically, a KML file draws a line on the map to connect a set of points. Go to the article on the M-199 (Michigan highway), and look at the upper right corner. You should see a globe next to "Route map: Google / Bing". That is generated through the combination of {{Attached KML}} and the KML file. The Maps Dept. Tutorial has instructions on how to trace a highway in Google Earth to generate the KML file. It's actually pretty easy to do, and except for Google Earth, it doesn't require any special software. If you can create some KMLs for articles that lack them, that would be a good thing. I'm slowly trying to make sure that all Michigan highway articles get them, with emphasis on the FAs, As and GAs, but that's over a hundred articles to go. USRD has thousands of articles that need them eventually.

I would suggest that you start with a few shorter highways to get some practice at first and then branch out to longer ones. KMLs are easier to generate than the map graphics, and they can overlay the line in Google Maps, Bing Maps or the "WikiMiniAtlas" (that globe icon in the article is a pop up map) so that a reader can zoom/scroll around the location of the highway on and interactive map. Anyways, once you have the KML file saved on your computer, add {{Attached KML}} to the External links section of the article and paste the file onto Wikipedia. (They can't be uploaded right now, but the tutorial covers how to add the file itself.)

Write and expand!

As you might know, Georgia has the worst average article quality of any of the states; only Puerto Rico is worse. You can see that for yourself on WP:USRD/A/S, which is updated daily by the bot. We use WikiWork as a metric to compare each state. The table lists how many articles of each class (FA, A, GA, B, C, Start, Stub) for each state/territory and the metrics. The last column is the relative WikiWork, which is on a scale of 0 to 6. Lower numbers are better, because WikiWork measures what it would take to reach the theoretical goal of every article being an FA. Note: redirects, disambiguation pages, categories, templates, books, portals, lists and all of that other stuff is NOT factored into WikiWork. Michigan's WW right now is 2.373 (there's a "live" version of the table at WP:USRD/A/L), which means that the average quality of that state's articles is between a GA (2) and a B (3). Just making sure that a state's articles have RDs and JLs (which bumps it to a Start) can immediately impact the WW score. If all of Georgia's Stubs were bumped to Starts (easy to do with a paper map and Google Maps), the WW would drop to 4.970, and the state would fall between Rhode Island and Alabama on the table.

Back in 2008, I was challenged on IRC to get Michigan onto the "leaderboard" (the top ten listing of states for the project in the newsletter), and with some work, Michigan jumped from #26 into the top ten in a month. (Newsletters were monthly back then). Granted, MI has a lot of business routes, and there's the Former Michigan spur routes list, and merging all of those stubs got them "off the books" for WikiWork, but it also means that Michigan has less articles to maintain. (We dropped like 100 stubs just through mergers which also means we have 100 less articles to work on.) So I'm going to issue you a similar challenge: we have a newsletter that's due out this month and another in July. See how far you can get Georgia up the table before the summer newsletter, and we'll put a mention of your progress into the issue. Minnesota is the tenth place at 4.009, so if you could de-stub and de-start (remember the historical map archive link that's available for GA), the state could pass up MN to get into the top ten.

Summary

There's lots that you can do to help the project,. Imzadi 1979 → 17:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. I don't know what is happening, but I am not seeing all of my talk page edits on my watchlist.

Thank you for the ideas for the project/articles/etc.

A project

Dough4872 (talk · contribs) has a contest, User:Dough4872/GA by number, to challenge editors working on highway/road articles to get a Good Article for each number 1–99. A few of the numbers aren't possible for Michigan (The first M-4 is now M-134 and the second is part of M-10, M-7 is now M-86 and M-9 is now M-99, for instance.) M-92 is part of M-52, so rather than write a partially duplicative article, I can merge M-92 into M-52. As my #92 on the list though, I'm going to work on Georgia State Route 92 at some point in the coming few weeks. I encourage you to follow along with my progress to see what I'm going to do to expand that article and clean it up for a Good Article Nomination. Since I don't live in Georgia, and I've never been there, you'll see what I can do just based on FUTON (FUll Text On the Net) sources and maps. I'll try to document for you what I've done as I'm working on the article. That way you'll have a template for further GA expansions. Imzadi 1979 → 00:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't replied sooner. I've been out of town since Sunday afternoon, and only got back about an hour ago. I "clinched" some more U.S. Highways and Georgia state routes!

I am going to check out Dough4872's GA page.

I just added Georgia 92 to my watchlist, so I can keep up to date with your latest edits. Thank you for both "ideas" for "stuff for me to do". Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:GA by number list

You can pick any numbered route to get to GA, as long it has its own article and is not a county route or has been improved to GA by someone else. Since you have indicated interest in working on Georgia articles and the state currently has no GAs, I would suggest picking state routes in Georgia to fill your 1-99 list. If an article you want is a redirect (for example Georgia State Route 4 redirects to U.S. Route 1 in Georgia), then look in another state for an article to improve. Dough4872 19:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, fellow roadgeek, for replying so soon to my query.

I am in the military, and am stationed at Fort Gordon (since November 2011). As such, I figured, since I am supposed to be here for a while, I might as well focus on Georgia State Routes.

Are there any GAs in South Carolina or Florida? I lived in SC for over 20 years, and I was stationed in FL from 2003 to July 2011, so those are major focus areas for me, as well.

Thank you for your help in this "project". Are there any other "words of wisdom" that you have for me to get my road article knowledge up to par (or better)? Imzadi1979 has been trying to help me, but I decided that I should ask at every opportunity for help. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

SC has no GAs and FL only has one GA. If you want, you can help out in these states as well. This part of the country needs article improvement. To help you out, Georgia has historical road maps which can be used to write the history section. Dough4872 21:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder, you have to nominate each of the items on your list for GA status. So if I get Georgia's SR 92 up to GA, I can count it on my list, but no one else can. Imzadi 1979 → 22:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If Imzadi1979 gets GA SR 92 to GA, then you cannot use that route for 92 on your list. You would need to pick another route. Dough4872 15:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Interstate 77 (1957-1958) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Interstate 77 (1957-1958). Since you had some involvement with the Interstate 77 (1957-1958) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Imzadi 1979 → 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, stop making unless redirects. There wasn't an Interstate 77 that only existed from 1957 until 1958. Redirects might be cheap, but if they're never used, they're worthless. Anyone using the autocomplete feature of the search function will hit upon "Interstate 77" long before "Interstate (1957-1958)", which I might add is formatted incorrectly. Date ranges have en dashes (–), not hyphens (-). Seriously, concentrate on writing articles first, and worry about this piddly stuff later. I'm not trying to bite your head off, but it's annoying to see unneeded redirects like Interstate 776 created foolishly and then this one appears on the new article report. Your "book" is fully of these pseudo-inaccuracies. Remember that if someone ever tried to print your book, if you listed Interstate 77 and Interstate 77 (1957-1958) in it, they will get two printed copies of the I-77 article. Redirects in books direct the software to add the target page, even if that means adding it again! In short, that's not a good thing. Imzadi 1979 → 16:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If you need proof of this redirect issue in your book, look at the error report on User talk:Morriswa/Books/United States Highways. Every redirect that duplicates an existing article is an error that needs to be resolved. Some of them aren't flagging as duplicates because they redirect to state-detail articles, which a complete book on the Interstates would contain at some point. This obsession with creating redirects of dubious need just to "complete" your book is creating headaches for members of the project, and it's creating errors in your book. The articles need to be our priority first and last. Things like books and good/featured topics and even our portals are secondary because they rely on good articles. We have a lot of crappy articles under USRD that need to be fixed, and that should be your focus. Build the content because we don't have an encyclopedia without it. Imzadi 1979 → 17:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. I don't know what is happening, but I am not seeing all of my talk page edits on my watchlist.

What do you mean, "useless redirects"? There wasn't an Interstate 77 from 1957-8? What does the Interstate 77#History page refer to, then? How do you put en dashes in the titles of articles? Whose bone-headed idea was I-776? Why did you put "book" in quotation marks? I wanted my book to have a link to EVERY Interstate and U.S. Highway (possible former, former, current, unsigned, future, possible future, etc.), however, there aren't articles to all of them. Also, redirects won't work either, for the reason you stated above. What can be done about that? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"Interstate 77 (1957–1958)" implies that there was an Interstate 77 commissioned in 1957 and decommissioned in 1958 because it has a starting and ending date in the name of the article. Instead, we have an Interstate 77 created in 1957 with a section that was removed by 1958. I don't have redirects for the section of M-28 extended south of Wakefield, Michigan, to the Wisconsin state line listing the start and end dates for that extension. Why not? Because M-28 has continuously existed in some form since 1919. I-77 has existed in some form since 1957, even if part of it that only existed on paper does not exist in the real world now..

As for the redirects in your book: remove them. This obsession for completion in this book is driving behavior that could be deemed a bit OCD. We deal with the confirmed, not the possible. We also deal with the notable here. For now, I would suggest that your book focus more on the current Interstates and less on the "possible". If you're creating redirects to items already in your list of articles included in the book, that's excessive and useless. No book is "complete" if the collection of articles being assembled averages out to poor quality. I've assemble a book on Michigan's highway system that has the article on the system, Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, the three lists (Interstates, US Highways, state trunklines) and all of the extant articles. As articles are created/updated, I update the book, not the other way around. Imzadi 1979 → 23:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought there was an Interstate 77 that existed in 1957-8. If that isn't the case, could I put Interstate 77#History instead to refer to the same highway?

Are there any other ways you suggest to change the page? I have thought about changing it to a list or some other kind of page. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a book, and the formatting used by books is kinda specific. They don't get infoboxes, they don't get portal links, etc, because those things don't translate well into print. (Each article's infobox(es) will be printed in the article, but the book itself sets up a table of contents for the book only, nothing more.) As for I-77, the highway that existed in 1957–58 is the same highway that exists now; a proposed extension into Michigan does not exist. Numbering and signage specs were in flux at that time. In fact MSHD didn't put up signs on its completed sections of Interstates in Michigan until 1959 just for that fact. I-75 was done between Toledo and the southern part of Detroit as US 25A in 1957, but it wasn't given the I-75 number and signs until 1959. You're focusing on an obscure proposal here.

What you really want to create is probably a book of your own writing about these older proposals and former highways, and trying to shoe-horn Wikipedia articles into that formatting won't work. You can't get just the history section of a larger article to appear as part of a chapter of your book; you get the whole I-77 article. What you want to do, and how the current articles are set up, just doesn't mesh together. Imzadi 1979 → 01:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Route 40 (California-Nevada) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect U.S. Route 40 (California-Nevada). Since you had some involvement with the U.S. Route 40 (California-Nevada) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). LJ ↗ 09:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

It rarely is helpful to say something like "I don't get it!" in response to a lengthy comment. Surely Imzadi1979 isn't going to rewrite his entire comment, and also, it makes us doubt that you've even read it. Next time, please say what you don't understand so that we can get the issue resolved more quickly. --Rschen7754 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, AFD pages do not get tagged for WikiProjects. --Rschen7754 22:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that "Articles for deletion" pages don't get tagged for WikiProjects. Why did you delete the pages I started? Couldn't you have removed the tags and placed a note informing that the page doesn't get tagged and why? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Empty pages get deleted anyway. --Rschen7754 22:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

They wouldn't be empty if you left a "reply" -type note saying why the tags were removed. And why aren't "Articles for deletion" pages tagged? You didn't answer that unspoken question. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Because there's no reason for the project to tag them; those pages belong to the WP:AFD process. Same reason why we don't tag GAN pages, or FAC pages, etc. --Rschen7754 22:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And no one ever would read the talk page for an AfD page. Talk pages are for discussion, and the AfD page itself is already the discussion. We tag articles on their talk pages so that our "back stage" stuff is hidden from the general public yet easily accessible to editors. Unlike an article though, once an AfD discussion is over, we don't care about that page anymore. (Assuming we cared about it in the first place...) Imzadi 1979 → 23:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, yes, I retyped and expanded some of my original comments based on your detailed follow-up, but Rschen's point stands: your initial reply to my comments came across as throwing your hands up in the air and saying "I don't get it! HELP ME!!!". It also implies that you didn't take the time to read what I wrote and poke around looking for additional information. Let's say that you're reading a paper encyclopedia article on something. What do you do when Collier's uses a term that's unfamiliar to you? Do you:

1. Look the term up in a dictionary or see if Collier's has an article on that subject?
2. Ask someone a specific question about the term so that they can either explain it or help you find an explanation of it? Or
3. Give up and complain to someone that you don't understand it?

Seriously, I don't know if you searched any of the help pages first. I know that I've been editing around here for years (coming up on 7 years this fall) so some of the terms I might use are second nature to me and maybe they aren't to you. That's fine, and I'm willing to explain. I'm sure others would do that too, but we gotta see some indication of effort on your side. I can't just hand you all of the sources to write a specific article, and I've shared more of my "secrets" to good highway article writing with you on-wiki than I have ever shared with anyone before. You're reaching the "sink or swim" moment soon where I will take away the arm floats and tell you to do it on your own. Once I finish the SR 92 rewrite, you should have enough idea what to do. By that time, I'll be turning my focus back to stuff that interests me more, and I'm hoping that you'll be down to short, specific questions of advice on stuff. Imzadi 1979 → 23:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Why would a WikiProject want to include a long expired AfD in its project pages? --Dweller (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Writing

Don't be dismayed about writing. The key thing is trying to find as much information as possible. I don't work much with road articles, but when I do, I try an find all sorts of nuggets of info that can be added. Try different Google searches to improve the articles :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

IRC

I've noticed you have a lot of questions regarding road articles. We have WP:HWY/IRC, which is a chatroom for Wikipedia road editors, where you can talk live to editors and get feedback from multiple people. To connect to the channel, go here and type "Morriswa" for nickname and "wikipedia-en-roads" for channels. I hope to see you on IRC. Dough4872 23:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Route 91 (Arizona-Nevada-California) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect U.S. Route 91 (Arizona-Nevada-California). Since you had some involvement with the U.S. Route 91 (Arizona-Nevada-California) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). LJ ↗ 06:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello Morriswa! I see that you've put yourself up for adoption – great idea! I'll be happy to adopt you because I enjoy working with others – especially to help them become a better editor on Wikipedia!

Take a look at my edit history; I usually work at Articles for Deletion, Articles for Creation, in new page patrolling, and in vandalism-fighting. I have been an editor on Wikipedia for a year, and have made over 15,000 edits to the encyclopedia.

I'm usually available on Wikipedia from 0:00 - 5:00 and occasionally from 12:00-16:00 (all times UTC). I travel frequently, usually on business trips around the world. I'm so young, yet so busy.

If I adopt you, I promise I will provide you with the most friendly, easy, and convenient adoption service through my adoption school. But if you don't think I am the right adopter for you, that's okay – you have no obligation to accept, and I won't be in the least bit offended if you don't. If you think I am the right adopter for you, please let me know – then we shall get started! Bmusician 07:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't replied sooner. I haven't been seeing all of my talk page edits on my watchlist.

Thank you for offering to adopt me (I had been wondering how long that would take). If you didn't see, I am mainly into U.S. road articles (Interstates, U.S. highways, and state routes.

What do I need to do next? I usually work 9PM-7AM (Eastern), Saturday night - Wednesday morning.

Thank you, again. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

• Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"

• News and notes: Help-space revamp, WikiTravel RfC, and Justin Knapp scores a million edits

• WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files

• Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content

• Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review

• Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit count

Simple You can check your edit count on the English Wikipedia by going to Special:Preferences and on all Wikimedia projects by way of Special:CentralAuth/EXAMPLE. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I didn't realize that my preferences page gave my edits. I had no idea about the other page.

By the way, congratulations on 1,000,000 edits. I want to get there someday. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to my adoption school!

Welcome!

You are now a student at my adoption school. Your official adoption page is located at User:Bmusician/Adoption/Morriswa.

In your first assignment (which I have already assigned to you) you will learn about the five pillars. Read the lesson carefully. You are required to answer questions about the lesson at the very end. You must answer all of them adequately in order to move on to the next assignment.

After you've completed all required assignments, you will then take an examination. If you pass the examination, you are permitted to either continue to study at the adoption school, or "graduate" from the school. (We'll talk about that when that time actually comes.) If you fail, however, you must stay at the adoption school until you finally pass an exam. Please note that you may leave the school at any time without graduating, but that means that you won't be awarded the "special barnstar" I give to my graduate students.

That's it; again I welcome you to my adoption school! Please me a message on my talk page if you have any questions regarding the school. Bmusician 01:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You submit your answers at User:Bmusician/Adoption/Morriswa. Regards. Bmusician 01:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)