Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Browse box coding, standardization

Now that the majority of states use {{Infobox road}} or a preset infobox based directly off of Infobox road, I believe that it is now time to standardize the browse box "type code"; that is, the parameter used to indicate what type of road that the previous route in the browse is. Currently, most states use "Interstate" for Interstates - however, the parameter for state roads and U.S. routes varies by state. To simplify things a bit for editors, we should adopt a "common code" for all states.

The technical aspect of the browse should not be considered at this point; it is more important to develop a common code through consensus.

Proposals

Proposal 1: (2-letter abbrev.)-US-Interstate

• The type for Interstate Highways will be "Interstate".
• The type for U.S. Routes will be "US".
• The type for state roads will be the state's two-digit abbreviation to match the naming convention currently used for the browse rows. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, if we can get California, Washington, and Nevada fixed to work the same way. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any problem with Washington (besides U.S. vs. US). -- NORTH ^talk 09:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Since it looks like everyone's on board with this (as of right now), we'll expedite the process a bit and move on to the actual standardization. Let's start with California. I've set up a test page regarding {{Infobox CA Route}} in my Sandbox. I know some of them look a bit weird (like the ones that say "CA Route 24"), but all of that can be fixed once I know what should be displayed.

Rschen, since you're an active contributor to WP:CASH, I ask you what should the links and the text in the infobox be displayed as? What I mean is (1) what should the text under the shield in the infobox read (I assume State Route num), (2) what should the browse link for state routes appear as (CA num, State Route num, SR num, etc.), (3) what should Interstate links appear as and (4) what should U.S. routes appear as? Once I know all of this, I can fix the browse code to meet the proposal. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be redirects between the subtemplates with the state abbreviation, the normally-used abbreviation (if different), and blank - so you can use type=VA, type=SR, or type= and get the right result. --NE2 16:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We aren't using {{Infobox CA Route}}... we're using {{Infobox road}} with state=CA parameter. Per WP:USSH I suppose it should be "State Route x" but we've used "Route x" since the birth of the CA routebox. Interstate and U.S. Route links should probably match national standards, although they technically are considered to be State Routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That explains the weird appearance. OK, I've fixed the test examples in my Sandbox, so I'll begin making the changes. If any of the browses appear to be messed up over the next hour or so, it'll be only temporary. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

California is now compliant with the above proposal. The new types for CA are: "Interstate" for Interstates, "US" for U.S. Routes, and "CA" for state routes. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Much thanks. I know NV's is messed up, OR might be too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just fixed Nevada (now "Interstate"-"US"-"NV"), will look at Oregon. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oregon already uses "Interstate"-"US"-"OR", so no work needed there. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Sometime over the next few weeks I'm going to get some of the other states' browsing set up too, so I'll just copy and paste CA or something. Thanks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you need any help with setting up/fixing states, let me know. My to-do list is finally (almost) empty and I need to stay busy to feel productive. =) --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to help build/tweak stuff as well. -- NORTH ^talk 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: Why is California still using "Route" for the browsing instead of "SR"? Every other state I've come across outside of New England uses some form of abbreviation in the browsing (either SR or the postal abbreviation). New England uses Route because that's what they're called colloquially, and in the case of Connecticut, they're only ever called "Routes" officially, and only ever abbreviated "Rte XX". I highly doubt that's the case in California.

I've been tempted for a while to be bold and make the change myself, but figured I'd better run it by others (especially Rschen) first. -- NORTH ^talk 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

CA has used Route for a long time... a switch to State Route would be fine if it can be done. (I considered switching earlier but couldn't figure out how to get it to work and still be consistent with {{ca browse}}.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'll do it tomorrow. It should be a really quick fix, but I'm about to head out for the night now. -- NORTH ^talk 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping, but I couldn't be sure. It was in fact a one-edit fix to one of the subtemplates: [1]. -- NORTH ^talk 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone a little bit further and gotten it to work with the old infobox {{Infobox CA Route}} as well, and also tweaked it so that either "State" or "CA" will work, as well as either "US" or "U.S.". (That might only be for the browsing though.) -- NORTH ^talk 21:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Browsing for every state is now compliant with the above standards. Additionally, the "XX browse" template now exists for every state. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My two cents

I think we're making a big fuss over something that can be fixed relatively easily. I don't see the need to apply strict standardization to the browsing, beyond converting states that look the way that Nevada did to the green infoboxy style. Some states use the postal abbreviation for type, some use "State", and for whatever reason, New Jersey uses a blank type.

I like NE2's idea of using redirects. Creating redirects from (for example) Template:Infobox road/WA/link WA to Template:Infobox road/WA/link State will allow for either method of programming to work, while not risking botching everything by a misplaced or incomplete move. Not that it's all that likely -- we seemed to be exceedingly accurate with the SRNC moves -- but I don't really see the point in another batch of moves for the sake of (oh dear God I'm quoting SPUI) "foolish consistency". -- NORTH ^talk 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying everyone has to use the new code directly - I'm just saying the base code should be at the above standard. For example, let's take New Jersey. Right now, the base code for the state type is Template:Infobox road/NJ name (blank type). Under the proposal above, it would be moved to Template:Infobox road/NJ NJ name, but the blank type can still be used to get the same result. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But why bother moving it? (As opposed to leaving the code where it is and creating a redirect at Template:Infobox road/NJ NJ name.) -- NORTH ^talk 17:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I say if someone's willing to move it then let them; there's no one forcing anyone to leave it alone nor to move them. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'll definitely let them move them as long as the old coding is allowed to remain as well. (Anyone caught reverting such a move deserves to be smacked with a wet noodle.) I just don't really see the point in moving them -- escpecially since personally I prefer using "State" for type rather than the postal abbreviations. -- NORTH ^talk 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Browse boxes

Which is the preferred order for browse boxes? s→n/w→e, or alphabetical? —Scott5114↗ 19:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always preferred the former. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. S→N/W→E. Matches the junction list/infobox, the route description section, etc. -- NORTH ^talk 06:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*GASP* Florida highway naming controversy

When I was going through Category:Florida State Roads and its subcats post-WP:SRNC, I came across several county highways that were former state roads -- but were (IMHO inappropriately) titled as still being state roads. For these, rather than renaming them from State Road XX (Florida) to Florida State Road XX, I renamed them according to their current designation. Ex: [2]. A couple days ago, one of these came up on my watchlist, informing me that User:Aerobird moved it back to the state road name (fortunately the SRNC-approved name) [3] "to conform with standard". I reverted him back, explaining that State Road 372A no longer exists, and while he has not re-reverted the move, s/he has made similar moves on other articles. (See prior discussion here and here.)

So, simple (I hope) question. Should an article about a current county highway that used to be a state highway be titled County Road 372A (Wakulla County, Florida) or Florida State Road 372A? -- NORTH ^talk 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

County. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation issues

I believe if an article belongs to a category, it should belong to all the parent and ancestor categories — the category hierarchy should be structured in such a way.

A few days back I noticed that Category:Interstate 85 was a subcategory of each of Category:Interstate Highways in Alabama, Category:Interstate Highways in Georgia, Category:Interstate Highways in North Carolina, Category:Interstate Highways in South Carolina and Category:Interstate Highways in Virginia but obviously not all the articles categorised under I-85 belong to Alabama, or Georgia, etc. so I removed those "parent" categories from Category:Interstate 85. I noted that the articles under I-85 which did belong to any of the "former parent" categories were already categorised under those (or I would've had to add those categories to those articles).

Then I noticed a similar situation in Category:Interstate 44 and removed some of the "former parent" categories from the category page and added them to the Interstate 44 article (again making sure the "former parent" categories need not be added to any other article in Category:Interstate 44).

Now I noticed that there are numerous such cases where category X has a subcategory Y but there are/could be articles categorised under Y that don't belong to X. Instances of "Y" include:

1. most subcategories of Category:Transportation in St. Louis
2. Category:Interstate 96
3. Category:Interstate 75
4. Category:U.S. Route 50
5. Category:Interstate 69
6. Category:Interstate 83
7. Category:Interstate 80
8. most subcategories of 2-7
9. probably thousands more that I didn't see yet

Since this kind of (IMHO sloppy) categorisation is widespread I wonder if it is actually acceptable. [BTW is this the right place or should this discussion be elsewhere?] -- Paddu 19:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're in the right place for a discussion like this. I've noticed this categorization mess as well, and I agree that it needs to be completely redone. Perhaps if I get some time over the next few days, I'll start cleaning this up. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, all of the cats have been cleaned up. Now, we need to determine a common sortkey. How does something like this sound:

Numbered roads: 00-0 (example: for Cat:Interstate 15, Interstate 515 would be "15-5")

Bannered/suffixed roads: (type) (state) (city) (U.S. Route 40 Business (Uniontown, PA) → "Business Pennsylvania Uniontown" or "40 Business Pennsylvania Uniontown", depending on the category)

--TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought with the current conventions, in Category:Interstate 15, Interstate 515 should be sorted as "5", Interstate 215 (California) as "2 California", etc. just like with the bannered/suffixed roads (3dis are "prefixed roads" in some sense). Any problems with this?

BTW please look into a similar question I asked in your talk page (related to categorisation but not WP:USRD) that got archived. Thanks! -- Paddu 20:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Category notes

I've recently created Category:Decommissioned highways to help us categorize the articles we have on highway designations that have been removed. If your state has a subcat for decommissioned routes (like Missouri), go ahead and put it in there. We also have the child category Category:Decommissioned U.S. Highways for U.S. routes.

If you read last week's Wikipedia Signpost (specifically the BRION feature), you know about the new {{DEFAULTSORT}} magic word. If on the article for, say, U.S. 177, you put {{DEFAULTSORT:77-1}} sortkeys would be properly added to all categories the article belongs to. Should save us a bit of typing. —Scott5114↗ 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma infobox

At WT:OKSH a discussion has started in regards to converting that infobox to use infobox road. However, a question has been raised: Can infobox road be converted to have information on two routes with the same number in the same state? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: not easily. Personally, I'd prefer a setup like that on New Hampshire Route 111A rather than trying to rework Infobox road to serve this obscure purpose. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Either that, or just have two separate infoboxes, the way U.S. Route 2 used to. I think mostly it depends on whether the two routes are related (continuations of the same route with a gap in between) or just two separate roadways that happen to have the same number.

If it's the latter, another option you might consider is to split it into two completely separate articles with a disambiguation page.

But if they're essentially the same route, I'm with TMF. Only list the westernmost and easternmost ends as termini, use horizontal lines in the junction list, etc. -- NORTH ^talk 23:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma has a lot of duplicated routes, some of which are only related in name: see Oklahoma State Highway 37 for instance, where the two don't even come close to connecting, and some which have had a section cut out, due to interstates, too much highway mileage, or in one case, the commissioning of U.S. 412. Arkansas has a lot of duplicated routes too, so I don't think the case is too obscure. I recall there was a US route in Pennsylvania that had a gap as well, and had two infoboxes (which felt cluttery - having it in an all-in-one box feels 'cleaner' to me).

It could be done by adding a sections parameter, which if returned "2", would display fields like direction_a2, terminus_a2, and so forth. That's how {{Infobox Oklahoma Highway 2}} handles it (though it's separate from the 1-segment template, and doesn't have the conditional). I believe the maximum number of segments is on Arkansas Highway 74, which doesn't have an article yet. —Scott5114↗ 07:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If they're two totally separate routes that happen to share a number (for example Minnesota State Highway 62 and many Interstates), they should probably have separate articles. An exception might be if they used to connect, were intended to connect, are both numbered for their place in a grid (like Indiana), or are both alternate routes of the same route. It looks like Oklahoma State Highway 37 is a similar case (was the south piece numbered to match Texas?), and should probably be split. The browsing order can be fixed relatively easily with a new type. --NE2 08:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox/browsing subproject

Anyone game for a subproject to centralize the discussion on infobox/browsing standards? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's what we need to do... it's crazy trying to keep things straight as it is. Good idea. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm game for sure. • master_son^{Lets talk} 23:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Will certainly help out where I can once I clean out my to-do list. -- NORTH ^talk 23:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI - observe Interstate 90 as the browse boxes for all the states it crosses are now present in the article. I happen to pick this as a lucky one since there are questionable issues on the Idaho route images (the "bug"), but I put in SD and MT this weekend and ID, MN (with SVGs!), IN and OH tonight. good work on the browse boxes guys! • master_son^{Lets talk} 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The subproject is now open for business at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Infoboxes and Navigation. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Split of US 422

Someone split U.S. Route 422, but does not seem to be doing any link fixing. What do you think? Should this be reverted? --NE2 03:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The user involved has a bad record... see #A copyvio problem on my talk page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does that matter in this case? We should be discussing the merits of the split, not the history of the user. --NE2 03:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

True... it does add into question the verifiability of the information... is what is there true? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

US 422 is a two-piece route that has never been connected; it was presumably planned to connect via US 22. The old article describes this. --NE2 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the FHWA, US 422 was going to be a one-piece route, but the overlap was too long. For this reason, I think the article should stay together. --NE2 04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was shocked it was split in the first place. US 422 is more Pennsylvania Route 29 than Pennsylvania Route 97, if you follow. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and revert. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else find this image way too blurry to be useful?

It was taken because the contractor goofed and placed the plates over the wrong shields. But I really don't think it adds anything to the article. --NE2 09:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if it weren't "too blurry to be useful", it still wouldn't really be useful for the article. -- NORTH ^talk 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Secret highway number

This was created by a user making edits to various Oregon Route pages, and since that project isn't particularly active, I figured I'd bring the question here. What do you guys think? Is it a neologism? Is it a useful article? -- NORTH ^talk 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a neologism to me. Usefulness? I dunno, that mileage can vary. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The user who created it has partially reverted himself on the Oregon Route articles, and I suggested that he {{db-author}} it. Problem solved before it happened. -- NORTH ^talk 23:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There probably should be something on the subject. All of Florida's U.S. and Interstate highways have "secret" (more properly "hidden") SR designations - some of which are better hidden than others - and a number of other states do the same. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ridge Route FAR

Ridge Route has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of Cleanup Templates

Oh, the irony of that section heading. :) I was thumbing thru Category:Cleanup templates and found several of the WP:USRD templates filed under C. Would it be appropriate to move the templates themselves into their own subcat, say Category:Cleanup templates for WikiProjects or even a more specific Category:Cleanup templates for WikiProject U.S. Roads? This would make them easier to find and use for the WP:USRD members and thin out the cleanup category. — MrDolomite | Talk 14:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That can definitely be done. Another thing that should probably be done is to give the cleanup templates a consistent name. The most feasible NC would probably be "Cleanup-(abbrev)sh" for the state-level ones, "Cleanup-ih" for Interstates and "Cleanup-ush" for U.S. routes. The "Cleanup-" portion is derived from the standard convention of cleanup templates on Wikipedia, and the rest of the NC following the dash is determined by the redirects that point to that WikiProject (as "WP:(abbrev)SH", "WP:IH", and "WP:USH" redirect to the state, Interstate, and U.S. route WikiProjects respectively). --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed...but on one condition. For states like New York, Indiana, and Rhode Island that do not use cleanupstsh (st being the state), they should use the two shortcut letters, in this case for New York and Indiana, stsr, and for Rhode Island, str. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 05:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a standard convention? (Keep in mind that I'm from NY and the fact of having a template named "nysh" irks me, but I realize this needs fixing.) --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sort of...but the original poster wanted a separate category for USRD specific cleanup templates. Now, suddenly you're jumping to NCs? Let's take care of categories first, NCs second. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

When two problems need to be fixed, it makes sense to fix them simultaneously. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, I already created the non-existing categories, so I'll open up AWB and change the cleanup templates' categories. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 05:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything has been completed. Just beware that some are cleanupstr or cleanupstsr, as to cleanupstsh. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 06:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The proposal that I detailed above has now been fully implemented, with the exception of the standard suffix (as I forgot about the presence of county route cleanup tags, which would throw a wrench into the naming naturally). --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons file upload bot

My file upload bot on commons now has a bot flag. If anybody has lots of images that need to be uploaded to Commons, please let me know, since this bot is only accessible by me! V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 02:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Project U.S. Roads and family

This template is getting rather large, even with the split versions. What should we do about this? Hide/show links? Split it again? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think hide/show links would work the best if the necessary code can be added without significantly inflating the size of the template. If we have to resort to splitting it again though, we may have to go by time zone. =) --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and then don't hide or show the nationwide stuff. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the split states? ;) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to petition the state legislatures to adopt a single time zone. =) --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a plan in action to take care of this still? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 22:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about this. Hide-show work for all? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's my vote, I'd be willing to say make the Project wide stuff not hideable, but each state project news hideable. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at User:Rschen7754/Sandbox for a prototype. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor problem with {{infobox road}}

I love the fact that infobox road does the conversion from miles to kilometers automatically, but there is one minor issue. Take a look at County Route 641 (Sussex County, New Jersey). The road is 1.24 miles long, which is 1.9956 kilometers. This rounds to 2.00 km, which displays as "2 km". This just looks wrong to me, I even double checked to make sure I didn't make a type when entering the length_round parameter.

Is there anyway to get it to not cut off the trailing zeroes? I know if I put "2 km" on my chemistry test (significant figures), I'd get the question wrong. -- NORTH ^talk 19:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I searched bugzilla for "round significant figures" and found [4]. It looks to be inactive. --NE2 20:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No more vandalism

512theking is grounded...new user (User:JohnnyAlbert10) is not a sock... V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 03:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The assessment backload

We have over 1000 articles in the unassessed category, and I believe there's about 200-500 more that aren't in the category yet. But I did find User:Kingbotk/Plugin. Anyone have any problems before I try and fire it up?

I do know that we'll have to make a second run through (with AWB) and add the mapneeded, for the plugin doesn't support that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget it. It's too slow. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Once in awhile I get into an assessing mood and attempt to tackle a good chunk of a state. 1500 articles is a feasible number to tackle without automation; we just need each of us to tag 5 or 10 articles per day. Perhaps I'll try seeing if I can make that quota... starting tomorrow ;) --Thisisbossi 03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Two deletion debates

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127 --NE2 18:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As noted on the AfD for the aforementioned articles: Perhaps we should combine many short routes into a list of short routes. It's just a thought that would be especially good for routes like County Route 66; we could put 10 or 20 on a page. Perhaps there's some other way of combining some, some better idea. Maybe something like "List of short Minnesota State Highways numbered 120-150". I'm not against an article for every route, but thousands of article for routes a few miles or less that only have a few sentences describing them? If it will be that way, so be it, but we will probably see numerous AfDs on articles, and I could see this going to arbitration in the end. Just a thought. --MPD ^{T / C} 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have articles for each county route, bannered route and such? I did the list format for bannered routes in Wisconsin since most are just short city business routes which fall under local jurisdiction. Of course there are some county routes that are highly important - though that is up to the contingency to decide. • master_son^{Lets talk} 02:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

State routes are notable. Presumably, to be included in a state-funded, state-numbered system, a highway has to have some redeeming characteristics: a need, and traffic volumes to suit it. Not so with county roads: they provide access to backwoodsy areas and haven't been judged worthy of being added to the state highway system. Thus, I would advocate merging county roads, but not state highways. —Scott5114↗ 05:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. In some states (New Jersey comes to mind) county routes are fairly major. Also, in many states, "secondary" roads are state-maintained and often frequently confused with "county" roads. Funding, maintenance, and purpose varies far to greatly from state-to-state to make a blanket statement like that. The only question should be is if valid source material can be found to write an article from, not some arbitrary and blindly appliued standard. A road that gets press in reliable sources, from which we can write an article, can have an article. --Jayron32 06:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, any major county route is notable. There could be some controversy about Missouri Supplemental Routes, since there are so many of them, and that there are multiple designations for one route.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 06:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (I can't watch this)

That's not actually true in all states. In Virginia and North Carolina, there are no county highways; everything outside a town or city is a state route. Both states separate the routes into primary and secondary in rather obvious ways, though, so the secondary routes can be treated like county highways: only write articles on the major ones. Kentucky is a bit of a problem. Not all roads are state-maintained, but "too many" are; many of the routes would be secondary or county highways in other states. But there is no primary/secondary split; the system is split in such a way but by segment, not by route. Thus a route can be partly primary and partly secondary. --NE2 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be helpful to see what we have done in Maryland, which uses a single article to account for the minor roadways. See List of minor Maryland state highways. Cheers! --Thisisbossi 22:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out of control... --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. I like the "List of minor" route, but until we figure something out, there needs to be an TRO against AfDing these routes. --MPD ^{T / C} 00:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, can somebody enforce something now?  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 00:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia doesn't have a legal system in which I could ask for a TRO. At least not one that I know of. We really need to watch AfD and explain that we're aware and we're working on hopefully removing these articles. Speaking of which, we need to be doing that. --MPD ^{T / C} 01:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

True; I put "Wikipedia is not paper" on all of those AFDs. Perhaps this could be brought up at WP:AN and have other admins comment? If that doesn't help, we could request ArbCom enforcement  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 01:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter is best summarized by the existence of List of County Highways in DuPage County, Illinois. :-) —Rob (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If we decide to combine "minor" routes, however we define those, it would not be hard to treat it like separate articles joined at the hip, with the availability of redirecting to sections. In another area I have been dealing with, you can link to B3 (New York City bus) and get essentially a short article about the B3, but as part of a longer page. --NE2 01:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. They can be done like that by state (much like Maryland), or for states like Virginia: "list of minor primary routes in Virginia", and "list of (significant) secondary routes by county". Not the exact titles, but the idea rather. The county routes by county, obviously. --MPD ^{T / C} 02:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also mention that the articles are part of a WikiProject... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder, this is why WP:USRD/P was created... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Now this just makes me mad

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York):

• Delete. Time to clear out the roadcruft. Edeans 06:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So you advocate deleting the 5400+ road articles? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes. Past time to get started. Edeans

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to block him for damaging Wikipedia (if he does request deletion of 5400+ road articles).  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, only if he does proceed to attempt to delete a massive number... it's not blockable, but he could be sent to ArbCom or RFC if he tries. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts. First, please don't nominate all 5400 articles until there is general consensus on what is and isn't notable. That would be very not useful. Let these few run, then derive principles and use that to decide what needs doing. Second, please don't threaten other users with blocking, if at all possible, assume good faith. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be that Edeans was being sarcastic, so I agree: assume good faith unless actions actually match words. Even still, I highly doubt any admin would dare let such a vast supply of information go *poof*. All such an act would do is damage Edeans' credibility. On the one hand, I strongly embrace the concept that Wikipedia is not paper; but then again, once in awhile I stumble upon a highway article that is some utterly useless and devoid of information (or it provides original research which may be equally useless and/or obvious, i.e. "southbound is really bad at 6pm"). The Minor roads article idea could be modified to encompass all stubs for a State. As notable information becomes available that would merit an upgrade to Start class, that article could then be spun off from the listing and into its own article. Basic geometrics, geography, and existing road names can all be accommodated within the listing just fine; but I think history is what really sets a road article apart. --Thisisbossi 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I can and will block for any WP:POINT violation I see. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsletters

Is there any interest for a newsletter such as those that WP:NYSH and WP:NJSH have? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely interested. How come nobody thought of this sooner?  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe make this a subproject? Should we include all subproject participants as well? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. How about a bot, like your's deliver the Newsletter?  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 00:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

AWB would be easier... since the bot is difficult to set up. If I delivered, it would need to have saturday publication since there's over 100+ editors... okay, I'll start setting it all up. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just operate the bot using AWB.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 00:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter really which account, AWB would probably take about 15 minutes to distribute to all. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For your state-detail needs...

{{State detail page browse}} should help simplify the code needed to make the succession box on the bottom of state-detail articles. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

More on deletion

To be frank, whether it's a good idea or not, I don't really see any deletionist movement being successful. There are definitely merits to the idea of merging stub articles, although the selfish part of me is opposed to it because it would counteract the hard work put in on the NJ county route articles the past couple of weeks.

Here's an idea I was curious if anyone had thought of... What if we created a new separate roads wiki??? -- NORTH ^talk 18:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging doesn't require AfD... just put a {{mergeto}} (or mergefrom) tag on the appropriate articles, wait to see if there is consensus, and do it. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd spend all my time on two wikis then, not just one. But...it's an option. I don't like the idea of the roads wiki not being on here; then it would be near impossible to get info on roads. Maybe to suppliment what is on Wikipedia...but that would just give reasons for there to be no roads article on here. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know it's a terribly controversial "solution" (term used loosely), just thought I'd throw the option out there. -- NORTH ^talk 21:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Forking is indeed an option, but IMO only if a majority of roads articles are in imminent danger of being deleted. As a very last resort, the pages could even be archived to roadgeeks' personal sites to host the content. —Scott5114↗ 06:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. But Wikipedia has the infastructure needed, setting up another site would be a pain. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, this sounds familiar. Why don't we worry about what's at hand and try to save as much information as we can just in case something happens. I have copies of templates and a few routes in text documents on my comp; just in case something happens, I've got it. And if we hypothetically were to create our own wiki, we could use the same code and just have to copy and paste. Anyway, first, let's worry about getting these AfDs stopped. I'm sure it'll pass in time. We need to hold strong and get more than us five or six participating in not only these discussions about what to do but in all discussions, including AfDs and GA noms and even Peer Reviews. We need to stimulate our base. --MPD ^{T / C} 07:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In such an event, I might be able to get the deleted text (however, I would need to get permission first, or at least advice. I remember someone got desysopped for something like that). We've got a newsletter coming Saturday to raise awareness. A lot of editors have not contributed to this project discussions lately and it's haunting us right now. Something must be done. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to advocate any sort of lack of maturity and well-reasoned arguments, but in addition to the numerous precedents, another avenue available to us is ye olde Pokemon test. Surely it's more reasonable to include every numbered highway than it is to include every Pokemon... -- NORTH ^talk 22:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what we need to do is to make a drive at adding to all of our stub articles, and they are numerous. I think people would have a much harder time nominating something that isn't a stub. --Holderca1 00:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiplex vs Concurrency

A number of Florida state road pages have had the term "Multiplex" replaced with "Concurrency" on the grounds that the latter is a "more natural term". Now I find the former to be more "proper" but what do y'all think? - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been done to Oklahoma pages too. In one place, begins a duplex with was replaced by joins with. I remember SPUI used to say that concurrency was an official term used by DOTs while duplex/triplex/multiplex was a roadgeek neologism. —Scott5114↗ 05:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But SPUI is not the one doing this ... it's someone named Krimpet. This is another move done without seeking consensus on usage, and should be reverted so it can be discussed here. Daniel Case 19:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But "du/tri/multiplex" isn't the correct term. It's a "concurrency". Multiplex- aside from the fact that it's ambiguous- links to "concurrency (road)" anyway. --MPD ^{T / C} 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The only place I have an issue with this mass replacement is in junction tables, where the use of "overlap" would be better. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Even then...in the notes column "Route X joins eastbound and leaves westbound" and in the table-wide marker I prefer to use "joins" and "leaves". But still, overlap is better when it's used as a verb in itself, but "has a concurrency/run concurrent" is good, too...that depends on the usage. Example: "I-40 overlaps with I-85 in central North Carolina" but "I-40 and I-85 run concurrent through central North Carolina" or "I-40 has a concurrency with I-85 in central North Carolina". Either way, duplex, IMO, is a terrible word, triplex I think is worse, multiplex is acceptable, but unadvisible. Concurrency is the best choice. --MPD ^{T / C} 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What I'm referring to is New York State Route 21 compared to U.S. Route 9 in New York. Exit lists...I have no personal preference. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just be wary that there's so many instances that have been replaced already. Probably close to 1K. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms is pretty clear on the subject. I would prefer overlap to concurrency though. --NE2 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplex makes me think of a type of housing and Multiplex reminds me of a movie theatre, I say use concurrency. --Holderca1 20:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur that concurrency is the best choice. Overlap is fine for article text, but concurrency should be used in exit lists (i.e. Begin/end concurrency). -- NORTH ^talk 22:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL, didn't realize until I saw my own edit summary on my watchlist the inherent hilarity of my unintentional pun (now bolded). A little humor is good from time to time. -- NORTH ^talk 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was the one that started replacing the terms. WP:NEO pretty clearly states that neologisms should be avoided, I tried to at least gain some consensus first by posting at Talk:Concurrency (road) and the talk page of WP:HWY a couple weeks ago, I waited until I gained at least some support before I started working on my replacement efforts.

Personally I agree with North in thinking that "concurrency" works better as a noun in route tables, and "concurrency", "overlap", "joins", etc. all work fine elsewhere. Though, I think the most important thing is how the word is used: "multiplex" et al. seems to encourage somewhat informal, inconsistent grammar, leading to inconsistent forms of the same words like "A (multiplexes|forms a multiplex) with B", "(A and B duplex|A duplexes with B) north to C", "the A/B/C triplex", etc. These could be greatly clarified with other terms: "A joins with B", "A and B overlap north to C", "the A/B/C concurrency", etc.

I'm sorry if I've been going against consensus and "disrupting Wikipedia" as Daniel has accused me of on my talk page, I'm only trying to make the articles more accessible to laymen. Does anyone have any concerns about my replacement efforts? From what I see here there seems to be a general consensus that "concurrency" is the right term to use (with "overlap" acceptable as well), but I will wait before continuing, I don't mean to be causing any trouble. Krimpet 01:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Those weren't good places to post. This talk page probably would have been better as it is much more active. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't really need to post anywhere before carrying out an obvious application of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. --NE2 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What's obvious to one person is not always obvious to others. It seems we're scrubbing "multiplex" from Wikipedia not so much because it's just made up but because it's jargon, used primarily in the roadfan community. Since so many articles had been written using it, and it's been used in the roadfan community for some time, I told Krimpet it deserved more consensus than he'd gotten and suggested he post at this more active talk page. It seems like he's getting it here, which is fine. But for myself any sort of bold move like that over a whole bunch of articles requires, morally at least, that you give a heads-up where it's most likely to be seen. Daniel Case 04:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rschen7754 that those weren't the best places to post; I wasn't aware there was a WikiProject Highways. But since I, and many other editors, agree with the edits that you've made, it's no big deal IMO, don't worry about it. --MPD ^{T / C} 02:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just a shell though, just like WP:USRD was in 2005. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll admit I'm still relatively new here so I wasn't aware it was a low traffic group I posted to; I just assumed I should go up the hierarchy and post in the most general forum. I'll make sure to discuss stuff in places like here in the future. Krimpet 02:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

SVG bug 5463

Is there any way to put it somewhere else? I know it's a FAQ but it does take up room... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Shields subproject probably. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved to FAQ page of shields subproject. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Has this (bugzilla:5463) actually been fixed? I can't manage to get User:NE2/shields displaying all shields; when I purge, some appear but others disappear. --NE2 05:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've found it's hit-and-miss. For example, I had to purge Image:I-70.svg on at least six different occasions before the thing finally began consistently displaying. The way I approach this bug (or, rather, its aftereffects) is whenever I find a shield that won't display, I immediately go to the Commons (or the page here if it's uploaded locally) and purge it. Of course, I often need to purge it multiple times before the thumbnail on an article displays properly. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

After checking out your page, I agree that this bug may not be fully nipped. Never have I seen images appearing and disappearing like this... --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap...you're dead right on this one. Is the bug still open? V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 05:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a reason it's not - only images uploaded before the bug was fixed are acting kooky. I used NE2's test page above as a base for my own, where I tested Image:NY-153.svg, uploaded some time after the bug was corrected. The image rendered correctly at all sizes. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the fix is to reupload the affected files? -- NORTH ^talk 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible. Couldn't hurt to reupload an affected image and test it. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had to purge images like crazy during my adding of browse boxes for several states including ID, MT, SD, WA, OH, GA and FL just to name a few. On a few of them I had to do the "reloading of the thumbnail" trick over at Commons. • master_son^{Lets talk} 13:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything in common between the images that aren't displaying, were they all created by the same person or by the same software. I haven't noticed any bugs with the images I have created using Inkscape. --Holderca1 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably SPUI's using Adobe Illustrator to create the SVGs.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 21:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reuploading does seem to work. I was having problems with the shield on County Route 512 (New Jersey), and after re-uploading, it seems to work no problem. -- NORTH ^talk 06:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A Third, Major Deletion Debate

Edeans has put California State Route 37 up for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/California_State_Route_37. This is just getting out of hand. --HowardSF-U­-T-C- 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'm going to ANI. This is a GA for crying out loud! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. Left my comments on the AfD, will leave some on ANI as well. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I can and will block for any WP:POINT violation I see. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[5] --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I will not block unless I see 50 AFD nominations or something like that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

STRONGLY recommend you let uninvolved admins make that call, Rschen7754. At this point, since I've spoken out, I consider myself involved enough that I would not myself block. In my view, if I am involved enough, you certainly are. Take that for what you would, but I'd hate to see a blockwar break out over this. ++Lar: t/c 05:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's horribly blatantly violating Wiki policies (like 50 AFDs), I will not block. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, even in that case, get someone else to do it. Bring it to AN/I, or take it to IRC if it's really a crisis, and ask for another set of eyes. You are way too close. Sorry, no offense, but you are. ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that my blocking would be a violation of WP policies. However, I will ask on IRC to block instead if the need arises. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you could well rules lawyer around to it not being a violation, but that's not my point. My point is, it's a bad idea and the block will cause less strife if given out by someone uninvolved. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California State Route 37 all closed as keep, the last one as a speedy under SNOW. I think that pretty firmly establishes practice as being that we keep these. See also Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Highways ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus

Just something I'd like people to be aware of so that maybe we can take a step back, and take a couple of deep breaths before we get into long drawn-out fights unnecessarily.

There's been a couple of instances recently of people trying to reopen old wounds (perhaps unintentionally) by saying things like "just another thing done without seeking consensus".

And it's certainly true that Wikipedia operates by consensus, or to quote Wikipedia:Consensus, "Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process." But when someone accuses someone else of doing something without seeking consensus, it shows that they're a little unclear on what the wiki process is. A couple more quotes from the lead paragraph of that consensus page, with emphasis added, should help to clarify things. "The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. ... "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.

When someone wants to make a good faith effort to improve an article or the encyclopedia, there's no obligation for them to actively seek consensus first. That's what be bold means, edit first. Then, if someone disagrees with you, resolve your disagreement through discussion. Above all, please remember that status quo is not, under any circumstances, the same thing as consensus. Just because something is the way it is, even if it's been that way for a really long time, doesn't mean someone can't come along and make it better.

Just everyone keep an open mind, take a deep breath, and then just maybe, we can finally all get along. -- NORTH ^talk 03:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive

Just wanted to throw this out there. Anyone thought of starting an AID for this project? I have started a draft page here. In light of recent events with AfD, I think this would be a good time to start it up. We have many great road related articles, but we have many more subpar or stub articles that need attention. If we focused our attention on one article per week, I think it would help us get going in the right direction. I know personnally that there are so many articles that I want to work on that I end up doing something else because the task looks so daunting, but working as a team on a specific article would help out. Let me know what you all think and I will move this from my user space to a subpage of this project. --Holderca1 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But I think we should shy away from Interstates. At least 2di's. 3di's maybe... the AfD's focus more on the smaller routes, and while we can't fledge out a two-mile state or county route (and I think we have a solution for that...), we could focus on a pretty big route like Ohio State Route 7, which looks like it could use some TLC. If we mainly let Interstates be our weekly focus, I don't think we'd do as good of a job as if we excluded Interstates from our focuses. But I do like the idea of an AID, no matter what routes we work on. --MPD ^{T / C} 20:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The solution you are refering to above will not work in all cases, for example, the Texas Farm to Market Road system. They are a secondary state highway system that connect rural areas of Texas to the urban areas. Thanks to urban sprawl some of these can easily support their own articles, while others are still in remote areas and there really isn't a whole lot to say. Having a list of all of them isn't feasible, there are over 3,000 of them. Listing them by county doesn't work, they transverse county lines. Listing by region would make the most sense, but even then you would have some that are in more than one region, not to mention you would still have hundreds of them by region. Although you would be surprised at what you can get out a 18 mile road in rural Texas, see Farm to Market Road 1. Up to this point I haven't seen any of them nominated for AfD, maybe people are taking "Don't Mess with Texas" seriously. --Holderca1 21:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not normally a negative personality, but I can't help but think if we do an improvement drive, we'd get to 52 in a year. Out of 3,219 stubs. Were you thinking of having each state project do a drive? Also, I know nothing about most highways outside of the Midwest (and it's not like I couldn't learn, there just aren't that many places to look), reinforcing the "state-based" idea. —Rob (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

@ Holderca1- Well, Texas is special. Always exceptions to rules, and always different ideas. My point is...the articles for which we cannot get a nice article out of (at least the length of an infobox...I hate when infoboxes are longer than articles), we need to either add to them or condense many into (many per state, maybe) lists. But yeah I get what you're saying. That's all we need to say here about that subject.

Otherwise- to all, I like the idea of each state project having an improvement drive, but I feel it could be the same two or three people working on it. If the WP:IH and the WP:USRD both had improvement drives, we'd all be working on both. If we want to, that's fine. But I also think WP:USRD should do their own AID of any route in the US. Just think of it as we'd be guests though; not barge into the OH 7 route and make everything as we're used to; follow the project's guidelines and rules. But yeah, it'd take 10+ years to un-stub and un-start (many) routes. Perhaps at every level from WP:USRD to WP:IH to WP:USR to the state projects, each dealing within their own scope. From my standpoint, I could be working on the collaborations of Ohio State Route 7, Interstate 270 (Maryland), U.S. Route 522, and Virginia State Route 69, for example (I just pulled those out of nowhere, but whatever). I'm just saying exclude Interstates from the WP:USRD collaborations. Let's do an AID! --MPD ^{T / C} 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that Virginia State Route 69 needs work? Just kidding. Anyway, I'd probably help with descriptions of the path the highway takes, especially in rugged terrain. --NE2 23:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something like "Adopt-a-highway-article" ;) I like the idea • master_son^{Lets talk} 03:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't have to be just one article a week either, we could do 2 or 5 a week or do an article a week for improvement and a stub a week for expansion, who knows. Also, as far as not knowing about a specific highway shouldn't be a problem since we need to find references anyway. Since using personal knowledge would be violiating WP:OR, just more fuel to be thrown on the fire during AfD debates. I don't see a problem with having an AID at the state level, but that would have to be decided by those projects, I would think only the larger projects such as California would be able to support it anyway. The AID for WP:IH would definitely be more geared at getting those articles to FA status, but there are some that do need a lot of work. Also, just because the AID exists doesn't mean those stubs won't get expanded on. --Holderca1 19:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I brought it up at WT:IH, because I feel it would be great there. I support any and all of this. --MPD ^{T / C} 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just moved the page into the project space, it can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Article Improvement Drive, shortcut: WP:USRD/AID. --Holderca1 14:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes and Navigation

The standards at WP:USRD/INNA have been written up - now awaiting comments and approval. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Template help needed

Could someone who knows ParserFunctions fix the importance category switch on {{Oklahoma State Highway WikiProject}}? It would be appreciated. Thanks. —Scott5114↗ 20:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I got it fixed. —Scott5114↗ 18:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning a list

List of State Routes in New York has ballooned to 166 KB, far exceeding the recommended article size. Anyone have any ideas for reducing the size of the page? Comments are welcome either here or at Talk:List of State Routes in New York. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"List of State Routes 1-199 in New York" and "List of State Routes 200-999 in New York". Something along those lines; the page is probably going to have to be broken up. Kinda makes me wish we could still have subpages, then it could just be "List of State Routes in New York/1-199" etc. Also, how much of the table code makes up the size? --MPD ^{T / C} 18:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How about doing what was done for Ohio, which was splitting Interstates, U.S. Routes, and State Routes in separate pages, and then make the page link to those new pages?  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 20:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

@ V60: I'm game for something like that. If the NY page follows the Ohio format, the current page would retain the state routes, the Interstates would go to List of Interstate Highways in New York, U.S. routes to List of U.S. Highways in New York and List of numbered highways in New York linking to all three. The links row in Infobox road would then be modified to match Ohio's setup.

@ MPD: I think about 60% of the article is table markup, but mostly because of (I think) redundant column width declarations and related things. Once the page is split as detailed above, I'll try and cleanup the formatting.

The reason I'm hesitant to make any kind of drastic change was that I proposed a change like this once before at the page and was dismissed. But the massive size of the page has made me a bit bolder. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Are there really enough Interstates and U.S. Routes to make a difference? I think first the table markup should be cleaned, and then we should see how big it is. We really don't need to define column widths. Also consider using redirects like I-890 (NY) rather than Interstate 890 (New York). --NE2 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't use redirects. But yes, we can use them, but it's not recommended. And yes, there are really enough Interstates and U.S. Routes to make a difference.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 22:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)~

Please avoid making personal attacks. There's no recommendation against using redirects; see Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. --NE2 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my bad. Sorry.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I got it from 166 down to 100 with only cosmetic changes. It should be possible to go further, possibly by using NY Route 9A-style redirects. --NE2 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good start. As an aside, I know that when a column width is specified on the first row of a table, Firefox renders the remainder of the table with those widths; not sure if IE does the same thing. In any event, that first row specification should be readded to at least the route column so that the link to the route appears on one line again.

I don't have any problems with using redirects for the routes that already have articles. For ones like New York State Route 598, though, those should probably remain a link to the actual article and be piped to display the abbreviation. Granted, if someone made an article at "NY Route 598", we could always move it, but why let it come to that?

On the abbreviation note, the same could be done for the routes at the termini, as in using [[NY 5]] instead of [[New York State Route 5|NY 5]].

If anyone wants to tackle this list (I'd do it myself but I have a lack of time in real life lately), please do so, ensuring that each route is listed S/N or W/E and that the "NY-X" abbreviations are changed to "NY X" to maintain consistency with the abbreviations used in articles. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If "NY 5" only applies to the route, that should also be fine. Otherwise there will be disambiguation problems, like with I-4 and VA-65. --NE2 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Doing away with the table format would also help. List of Minnesota state highways is a bulleted list, which is much, much smaller and easier to read. --Sable232 17:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are essentially two different ways to do a list of routes. If you want to include the termini information (like New York currently does), then it's best done as a table. If not (which Minnesota doesn't), then I'd agree that a bulleted list is best.

I don't really have an opinion on which would be best in this specific situation. -- NORTH ^talk 18:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A notability criteria guideline for roads?

Since road AfDs seem to be popping up a lot, claiming everything from minor county routes to major urban expressways to be "non-notable", may I suggest that perhaps a notability criteria guideline page for roads, in the vein of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc., be proposed? Hopefully this would help better clarify consensus regarding the notability of roads, since all there is right now is a couple of quick blurbs at WP:OUTCOMES#Transportation and geography. Krimpet 20:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I still back a list of routes with a short description and what have we. Perhaps not so much notability so much as if a decent article could be made out of it. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed, each highway should be its own article. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

“

• National highways (like interstates and U.S. routes in the U.S., M-class and A-class highways in the U.K.) are notable.
• A highway is notable if a state department of transportation (or analogous agency) has assigned it a number.
• County routes may be notable depending on their importance.
• Major freeways in urban areas are notable even if the DOT has not assigned them a number.

”

This is basically consensus here; anyone have anything to add? —Scott5114↗ 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A more objective guideline for county routes may be a good idea: what exactly makes a county road important? Are Farm to Market Roads considered on par with county routes or state routes?

Also a reasoned justification of exactly why roads should be considered notable would probably be a good idea, as a more compelling argument to stave off the AfDs. Personally I think a good model would be WP:BIO's stance on politicians: "Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office" are considered notable, thus it can be reasoned that touring routes designated by international, national or statewide/provincewide legislatures are considered notable. ("Prominent local politicians" could also perhaps be applied to prominent county routes.) Krimpet 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I find that most county routes of encyclopedic importance were either state highways in the past, or they have local/historical significance (i.e. University Avenue (Minneapolis-St. Paul), which is Ramsey County 34 and was also part of US 52 at one time). --Sable232 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well since WP is timeless, any road that was ever in one of those above criteria passes. There are county roads in Texas in addition to the Farm to Market Roads which are considered a state highway by TXDOT, so technically, they are secondary state highways. --Holderca1 22:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should include a comment that if there is in fact very little to say about a road it might make sense to merge it. I would also say that all freeways are notable, though defining exactly what is a freeway might be hard. --NE2 06:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Another deletion debate

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storrow Drive --NE2 11:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

another one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tennison Road --Holderca1 12:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

okay, just noticed this one isn't in the U.S., but anyways... --Holderca1 12:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is tracing a copyvio?

I'll probably start putting up maps of Interstates shortly according to the standards, but I wondered if my technique is a copyright violation.

I would zoom in to the scale I want on Google Maps and take a screen copy. Then I would trace the roads on a separate layer above the Google Maps screenshot.

Is this derivative work a copyvio? —Rob (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it depends how accurate Google's data is, so probably not, unlike tracing a stylized map. You might want to check on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.... --NE2 05:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A tracing of google maps is a derivative work. And thus a copyvio as far as we are concerned. Megapixie 00:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What matters is the final product; if Google Maps's data is accurate, you can't tell that it is a tracing. The information about where the roads are located cannot be copyrighted. --NE2 06:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how recent it is, but online USGS maps provides routes and all that. It's government work, so any images obtained from the USGS are public domain and you could trace those (correct?). Like I said though, I'm not sure how recent the images are; I looked at Greensboro, North Carolina, and the Urban Loop isn't on there, and it opened a year and a half ago. --MPD ^{T / C} 00:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:IH/ELG

Since this page has much to do with all the projects, we are proposing to move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide. Are there any objections? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

TMF, rschen, and myself all agree on this. Anybody else?  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 06:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --MPD ^{T / C} 07:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Do it. --Holderca1 07:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Page moved to WP:USRD/ELG.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 07:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo galleries?

This seems to be an issue only on New Jersey pages, but I figured I'd bring it here for a couple of reasons (the relative inactivity of WT:NJSCR, and that it could turn into an issue on any USRD article). What's the opinion on photo galleries? Specifically, should they be included? And if so, where in the article?

I'd been meaning to tackle the issue for a while, but didn't have the guts to do it until a mini-edit war developped on County Route 549 Spur (New Jersey). There are a couple of issues at play here. As Alansohn points out, putting the gallery where I currently have it prescribed on WP:NJSCR (where it is in this revision) might break the flow of the article. However, putting it anywhere else – specifically below the link sections, i.e. here – violates WP:GTL. Taking the pictures out of a gallery – i.e. the current revision – is awkward when there's not enough article text to support it.

Which begs the question of whether we should have these photo montages. Certainly to some degree, it violates Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. The question is to what degree? How much do the seven images in the New Jersey Turnpike gallery contribute to the context of the article – especially when three of them are written with captions telling the story of a specific hazardous spill that happened one day? -- NORTH ^talk 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps only one or two of those images is good for the article: the toll booth and traffic. However, they could both be put somewhere in the prose, I'm sure. Galleries, IMO, are not good for an article about a road. Pictures are good, yes, but only if they can be put into the prose. The rest of the images on NJTP are fine. There should be a link to the Commons where there can certainly be a gallery of images there (as there is on the NJTP, but I'd like to see it in a more prominent position than at the very bottom of the article). In the case of NJCR 549, it one of those images should be brought up to the prose, on the left, near where "segment 1" and "segment 2" are, IMO the second image. They should really all be on the commons if they're PD, then a Commons link to the gallery there. --MPD ^{T / C} 19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's my text size or resolution, but when I hit a gallery, especialy if it runs to two or more rows, it appears that the article has ended. *I* know it hasn't, but other readers are unlikely to continue further to references and links. In many cases, these galleries are little more than laundry lists of uploaded pictures, that have no connection to the article other than showing a small stretch of the title roadway. I'd be happy with pushing them down to the bottom, which keeps them in the article, but makes them the afterthought they seem to be. It's not clear that WP:GTL requires that links be the last item or if it merely suggest an order. Alansohn 20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I booted all of the pictures on the I-80 article to the bottom because I couldn't pick the two or three best of the lot and put them in the article. I objectively (subjectively?) couldn't tell. Number of pictures should be directly related to the length of the road, though. A county route spur should have no more than 2 pics. I-80, one for each state and optionally the ends (but Wikipedia is not a <state name> Ends Page, either). State routes, 3-5, again depending on the length of the road, and if there's anything "visually notable". If all the pictures look the same, just pick the best one and be done with it. —Rob (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My personal take is that galleries should be avoided whenever possible, as they (IMHO) detract from the quality of the article. Instead of a gallery, the images should accompany the prose or (if licensed freely) be removed from the article and get moved to the Commons, where a gallery can be made there. An example is on U.S. Route 422, where a gallery of 8 images once existed. As part of my cleanup of the article a while ago, I ditched the gallery and included the images alongside the prose, improving the article in my opinion. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this philosophy; I was just having trouble with the "canyon of text" that runs down the middle of the page when you have pictures floating left and right. There's a length table floating on the left, a major cities table running the length of the page floated right, and any pictures will be under these two respective tables, creating the canyon. At 1024x768, it starts to look really crowded. —Rob (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I don't like "canyons of text", either. Interstate 76 (east) is on the upper limit of what an article should look like. Still looks better than it did. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I say just keep what photos you need in the prose and use a Commons gallery for the rest with a link using {{Commons}}. --Holderca1 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get a Commons link in the infobox? It'd be optional provided there's a corresponding Commons gallery. --MPD ^{T / C} 22:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, just need to modify Infobox road, add a parameter such as commons=yes. --Holderca1 23:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer a question that has yet to be asked: Best place for said link would probably be below the little-used links row that exists below the browse row. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with moving to Commons. --NE2 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll support moving to Commons. But we also need a higher quality of pictures on most articles for the pictures that stay. Perhaps a Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Pictures guidelines? —Rob (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

When you say a higher quality, do you mean using a better camera or better composition of the photograph? --Holderca1 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Better composition. It's not too hard to make I-70, 80, 90 and 94 all look the same if you're in the Great Plains. I think the idea is to take photos of the highways that allow you to distinguish one from another visually, too. —Rob (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, photos of rural interstates should be avoided unless there is something truly remearkable about the scene. All rural interstates look the same, 2 lanes in each direction, median in the middle, got it, don't need a photo of each one. Photos of interstates through urban areas are much more interesting. --Holderca1 18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course, I'm all about scenery. A rural interstate with mountains in the background is a great sight! But yes. A nice rural image is better than no image at all. But if there's a good urban image, it can take the place of a rural image should it need to be decided. But yes, higher quality and urban trump lower and rural. I'll comment more later, have to go--MPD ^{T / C} 19:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Extra points for pictures that actually have the shields of the highway in them. Shields happen to be great distinguishing visual markers. —Rob (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the moving to Commons, too. The idea hadn't even crossed my mind. -- NORTH ^talk 18:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't finish earlier because my class started so I had to get off the 'pedia. So the consensus is that no galleries on articles; instead link to the commons where galleries can be housed. Add photos as long as prose can support them; valleys of text are ill-advised, and photos with shields (and signs?) are good. That sums it up? Also, are we going to go through with adding the commons parameter at the bottom of the infobox? With the little commons logo? We'd still keep the commons template at the bottom. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, infobox road now supports a link to the commons, all you have to do is add the parameter commons=, if left blank it won't create the link, if there is something input, it will create the link, for simplicity, just put commons=yes if you want the link. I added it to County Route 549 Spur (New Jersey) so everyone can see how it looks. It links to a gallery that doesn't exist at present. It will automatically create the gallery link to the same name as the article title. --Holderca1 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, this just screwed up every other infobox. Look at Minnesota State Highway 200. --Sable232 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I saved a messed up version. Now it pulls the name displayed from what's at the top of the infobox. --NE2 21:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We are going to have dab issues if we use what is at the top of the infobox. --Holderca1 22:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not true; it still links to the right place. --NE2 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I see, I misunderstood what you meant. --Holderca1 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This could be harder than I thought. On "Interstate XX in [State]" articles, how would it link to the general "Interstate XX" gallery on the commons? Like Interstate 74 in North Carolina has a link that goes to commons:Category:Interstate 74. --MPD ^{T / C} 22:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple, use a redirect. --Holderca1 23:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed it so that now it links to a category on Commons instead of a gallery page, since thats what {{commonscat}} does. See New Jersey Route 7 for an example. -- NORTH ^talk 08:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this, perhaps for interstates this works, but most roads will have one or two photos of them, why create a category for the road if just one photo is needed, it will just make it harder to maintain and to upload photos as well. I think it should point to a gallery page and if a cat exists for that road, then a redirect is put in place to have it point to that category. --Holderca1 11:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a parameter to choose whether you want a category or not? --NE2 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That works, makes sense just as {{Commons}} and {{Commonscat}} both exist. --Holderca1 15:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's done, put either commons=category or commons=gallery, for those that have already put commons=yes, they will need to go back to make the change. I change NJ 7 and CR 549. --Holderca1 15:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, that's a good compromise. I wasn't aware that there were two different templates, and after reading Commons:Categories a little more thoroughly, it seems like the best way to go about it – there's no consensus there as to whether galleries or categories are better, only that both are fine. -- NORTH ^talk 16:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is linking a reader to commons:Category:Interstate 80 the goal? I clicked on it and there are a few shields, a lot of maps, and one picture on the first page. Are we creating separate categories for just the pictures? —Rob (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't create another cat just for pictures, the link in the infobox just says media, it doesn't specify photos. If you just want to link to the photos, I would recommend the use of a gallery instead. --Holderca1 17:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

All right... that's entirely a stylistic issue, then. It depends on how unappealing dumping a user onto the commons page is. If there's over a certain number of pics in the category, I would consider making a separate gallery, otherwise it is what it is. —Rob (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't count that many colons, so I'm going back to the left. I think it's fine. A reader might find some interesting stuff with the maps and shields and whatnot. Never know. I think as they are, it's fine. Creating all new categorys might require discussing it on the Commons though. --MPD ^{T / C} 18:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)