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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Image:US Route 50 Business (MD).svg

Why can't I get this shield to display in a Wikipedia page? -TheOneKEA

Purge it on Commons.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 23:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to follow the instructions on the page, but it doesn't work. How do I purge images? -TheOneKEA

Here is a purge link for the image.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I already purged it; the image displays now.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 01:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it still won't display for me. I tried purging the article that uses the image but it just doesn't work... -TheOneKEA

Look here, it's an SVG bug.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 17:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Junction list

A recent edit has been made to the Maryland Route 8 article that goes against this project's established standards including the format of the junction list. I was going to simply revert it and cite WP:MDRD/EG as the reason, only to find that that has been changed as well! In the future, I would prefer if members of this project sought comment here before making such a drastic change to the project standards. That said, I like the idea of using templates to simplify the junction list, however it's missing some things, namely control cities and a format for water crossings. Also "Road(s)" needs to be named "Destinations" to be more in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Exit list guide, on which the table is supposed to be based. Comments?-Jeff ^(talk) 03:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, that is quite a change!! Having to do that will necessitate major revision of just about every article in the entire project - although I do agree that a template will make it somewhat easier to create such lists. -TheOneKEA

After thinking about this some, some more things need to be added to make it easier to use with Maryland articles. Counties for example can only be linked in the form [[{{{County}}} County, Maryland|{{{County}}}]], which doesn't work well with Baltimore City, perhaps some logic could be added that tests for the value "Baltimore City" in the county field and links it appropriately. Also, as I mentioned earlier, there is no way to provide control cities for junctioned routes. I reverted the MD 8 article until some of these issues can be resolved since it will probably require some extra parameters. (See the diff link above for how the table applies to the article).-Jeff ^(talk) 17:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In the location variable, it can be specified as Baltimore City. Also, for unincorporated areas, just put "COUNTY County". This new table is basically the standard for a number of WikiProjects (WP:PASH, WP:NYSR, WP:INSR, WP:RIR, WP:SCSH, WP:NVSH). Extra parameters will probably not work since the new table is based off of {{Jcttop}} and {{Jctbtm}}. Control cities can be listed in the infobox.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 01:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the current junction table, based off of WP:IH/ELG, cannot be used, and the exit list should only be used if the route is a freeway or has one or more freeway sections in it. See Pennsylvania Route 60 for clarification.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 01:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Scratch the thing about control cities. In a regular junction, you don't often get control cities listed. As with the Baltimore County and City problem, you can bypass the template and use the regular table, like this (Baltimore County):

|-
|[[Baltimore County, Maryland|Baltimore County]]
|LOCATION
|MILEPOST
|ROAD
|NOTES
{{MDint

For Baltimore City, you can use this:

|-
|colspan=2|[[Baltimore City, Maryland|Baltimore City]]
|MILEPOST
|ROAD
|NOTES
{{MDint

Add a |colspan=x if needed.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 01:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Roads in Maryland template

Roads and highways in Maryland
Roads:	State highways - U.S. highways and Interstate highways - Minor state highways - Decommissioned state highways
Highway agencies:	State Highway Administration (SHA) - Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA)

I plan on adding the above table as a template to some of this project's main articles to help better tie them together, it will basically replace the "see also" links to the above liked articles such as those in List of Maryland state highways. Anyone think anything can be added, or if it can be otherwise improved?-Jeff ^(talk) 05:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's nice! A list of parkways in Maryland might also be a useful addition. -TheOneKEA

All that can be included in the links row in the infobox. This template is not needed.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 16:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not for the route articles, just the articles listed in it similar to {{MdTA facilities}}. Like I said, it would be nice to have a handy way to organize the "see also" links in them and make sure they all link to each other. As for the parkways, we could create a separate template for them, but if there are alot of them we might be better off creating a list article for them.-Jeff ^(talk) 04:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Maryland business routes

Should a mega-article be created with redlinks to all of the business routes present in Maryland? At the moment, there are at least six:

• U.S. Route 1 Business (Bel Air, Maryland)
• U.S. Route 13 Business (Pocomoke City, Maryland)
• U.S. Route 13 Business (Salisbury, Maryland)
• U.S. Route 15 Business (Emmitsburg, Maryland)
• U.S. Route 50 Business (Salisbury, Maryland)
• U.S. Route 113 Business (Snow Hill, Maryland)

-TheOneKEA

No, keep them as they are, and in fact, create those pages. Just make sure they are not in a browse of some sort.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 70 in Baltimore, Maryland

Like the I-95 in Maryland article, this one is starting to get pretty big - should the sections on Baltimore be split into a separate article? I got the Interstate Highways WikiProject to approve Interstate 95 in Baltimore, Maryland, so I doubt that Interstate 70 in Baltimore, Maryland would be a severe problem, especially since the article on the Jones Falls Expressway follows the same precedent and existed well before I-95's article. The biggest issue I would have with doing a split is the lack of historical info for the rest of the route - the section on Baltimore takes up most of the existing article. -TheOneKEA

Anyone? The reasons for the split still stand, IMO - especially if the U.S. Interstate Highways WikiProject requires the article to be further expanded to satisfy any requirements. -TheOneKEA

Cleanup template

Just a heads up, I just created a cleanup template at {{cleanup-mdrd}}, since it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to tag long articles as stubs simply because they are missing a section or two. The stub templates should just be used on short articles.-Jeff ^(talk) 20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This template is substandard, it needs to look more like the parent USRD cleanup template.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Inactive users removed from participants list

Like the heading says, users that have been deemed inactive within the U.S. Roads WikiProject (one of this project's parent WikiProjects) have been removed from the participants list. If you are subscribed to the project newsletter (which everyone is by default) you should have gotten notice that this was going to happen. In case you didn't know though and are still active, make sure you weren't erroneously removed from the list.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you were, contact Rschen7754.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 02:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yellow for Toll Roads

The article for Interstate 95 in Virginia uses yellow to mark exits that connect to toll roads. I think this would be a useful addition to the exit list for Maryland Interstates and other highways that connect to toll roads, as well as inter-exit rows describing toll facilities. Comments? -TheOneKEA

No. In fact, any colour from any exit list must be removed immediately, since the exit list guide prohibits it. This does not apply to junction lists. (→zelzany - new age roads) 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. When I get a moment I will make the necessary changes to articles using colors in the exit list. Just out of curiosity, why prohibit colors in the exit list? Does it detract that much from the content? -TheOneKEA

Two things: general appearance and common sense. Also, please date your posts as well (use four tildes, unlike three). (→zelzany - new age roads) 23:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Route 40 in Maryland

Is there any desire amongst the WikiProject participants to work on this article? The fact that U.S. 40 is nearly 231 miles long, most of it multiplexed with I-70, means that the junction list alone would take up almost all of the article's content. Would it be better to concentrate on getting the other U.S. route articles fully fleshed out first? -TheOneKEA (20070611 18:44)

I don't know exactly what to do about the junction list, perhaps limit the rest to really major junctions, if we listed the lesser junctions, the article size could get huge fast. It's definitely worth creating, especially considering it's the longest route in Maryland [1]. I'll go ahead and at least give it a start. U.S. Route 40 in Maryland-Jeff ^(talk) 03:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I-495/I-95 - I-295

I added a photo of an interchange to two articles (Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) and Interstate 295 (District of Columbia)), but I'm not 100% sure if I got the description and localization right. I'm sure you all know better, so please do check my guesses... Thanks. --AndreasPraefcke 12:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

ICC issues

I don't have the time or knowledge to do this myself, but I noticed that one (or more) of the editors of the Intercounty Connector article seem to have a personal anti-ICC bias, and that bias has made its way into the article in the form of facts that are against the ICC. Particularly, edits have been made claiming that it has been concluded that the road will not improve, or even worsen, congestion and have significant social and environmental impacts. As far as I can see, these conclusions are not backed up with a citation, and they have thrown the balance of the article's POV way off. Additionally, the article could probably use some general cleanup. I urge anyone who is knowledgeable on the ICC, and/or has experience in fixing POV issues to go take a look at it.-Jeff ^(talk) 17:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it when I'm done writing an article. (→zelzany - new age roads) 17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I can help out as well. Would it be best to simply delete the bias? -TheOneKEA (20070614 17:41)

General question about Baltimore

Since there is no Baltimore WikiProject I'm asking this here. Does anybody know when the original North Avenue Bridge over Jones Falls opened? I know it was rebuilt in the 1890s, but there was an earlier one. Thank you. --NE2 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to use infobox Maryland highway over infobox road?

I decided to clean up some Maryland infoboxes, including those listed on User:vishwin60/Roads/MD. In the process, I replaced template:infobox Maryland highway with template:infobox road. I was reverted on several articles: [2][3]. Is there a reason why the Maryland template should be preferred? The only "advantage", if it can be called that, I can see with infobox Maryland highway is that you don't have to specify the state parameter - you use "infobox Maryland highway" rather than "infobox road|state=MD". On the other hand, using the state-specific templates means that whenever a new parameter, like maint, is added, it needs to be added to each of the state infoboxes before it can be used. --NE2 21:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NE2, Infobox Road seems to be the most logical template to use. --myselfalso 23:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I, however, have no opinion on this, other to just say that {{Infobox Maryland highway}} is perfectly acceptable per WP:USRD/INNA/I. (→zelzany - new age roads) 23:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox Maryland highway}} has always been this project's routebox. It uses {{Infobox road}} as a backend and therefore is permitted under USRD standards so I see nothing wrong with using it. There's really no real advantage to using Infobox road over Infobox Maryland highway since adding a new parameter to the state infobox is no more of a chore than adding the new parameter to each article individually. Besides the state parameter not having to be specified in the state infobox, if type isn't specified, it defaults to MD. Similarly, length_round defaults to 2 (the precision used in the HLR) if it's not specified.-Jeff ^(talk) 01:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

However, consensus can change; please keep that in mind. (→zelzany - new age roads) 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Another strong argument to using a state infobox is that if a new parameter is added to Infobox road, the parameter can be easily added to the state infobox and be given a default value (such as the MDSHA default I gave to maint), and all articles in the project will automatically have that value for the new parameter. All that needs to be done after adding the parameter is to fix it in the few routes that are not maintained by the SHA, instead of adding it to all articles.-Jeff ^(talk) 01:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this default is a good idea, since someone writing about a route that's not all state-maintained might forget that the maint parameter exists, and make the infobox incorrect. In fact, right now, several articles including MD 26 and MD 139 are incorrect; others may be harder to spot because they don't enter Baltimore (for instance MD 195). --NE2 02:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates

All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master son^{T - C} 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Interstates in Maryland

Fairly straightforward question: do Interstates in Maryland use neutered or state-name shields? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a mix. Interstate 97, for example, seems to have quite a few state-name shields. I've also seen a picture of one for 95. I think Maryland has switched back and forth over the years and that's shown in the different shields used. As for what's used on new shields now, I don't know.-Jeff ^(talk) 01:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. So, for the 70px shields in the infoboxes, which one should be used? I'm trying to determine whether to use the neutered shields or the state name ones. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, the only Interstate that uses them with any regularity is I-97. I-70, I-83 and I-95 all have a smattering of state-name shields, but most of those are older ones. New shields are generally neutered. -TheOneKEA (20070813 2201)

Articles should probably be changed to reflect this fact then. An editor seems intent on changing all Interstate shields on Maryland articles to ones displaying the state name, which is what caused me to raise the initial question. Since I'm not familiar with Maryland interstates, I'll leave this task to this project. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed them on a lot of the freeways (and admittedly, only consistently on I-97), but at the same time, I've seen a few on 3di's as well (I-895 for one), so I'm torn. I don't see the problem with it, personally, since they are a dying breed, but it's up to the group to decide. EaglesFanInTampa 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Before this gets out of hand...

We need to get some kind of consensus on the state name vs. neutered Interstate shield issue. I've noticed recently that edits are starting to go back and forth on these, as some recent edits show, and the last thing I want to see is this erupt into an edit war.

My thoughts: I personally feel that state-name shields should in no way be used as 20/25px shields, since the larger route number used on neutered shields is more readable at that size. This especially needs to be considered for people with poor vision. Also, considering the fact that the state name is impossible to read at that size, there isn't much use in including it anyway. As for larger shields, as has been pointed out, while both kinds of shields are used in Maryland on various Interstates, neutered shields are more common. I propose that we use neutered shields on the routeboxes and right-align a state name shield at the top of the route description section as is done with I-95 (perhaps without the caption though). The state-name shield could serve as a visual reminder to the reader that they are reading a Maryland-specific description. Comments?-Jeff ^(talk) 00:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps consider referring to the Maryland SHA Signbook. The only sign standard I could locate was the neutral M1-1. In the continual push to reduce sign clutter, simplification of signs is one path: tiny type upon a major arterial is less than ideal. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff makes a very good point and I agree... however, these state name shields, since they are likely made in that shield making program I am familiar with... whoever makes them should increase the font size. If an interstate shield I see on the highway has a state name in it, the numbers aren't as tiny as they have them. If anything the state name is tiny... so I am ok with the state name being there as Jeff said, but the number size should be the same as the neutered signs... Route 82 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I made the shields. While I have seen some state name shields that use a full-size number, I based the shields I made off of the template at the Commons, which I'm assuming is based on the official standard. So unfortunately, changing the font size will probably lead to some people complaining that they're "not correct".-Jeff ^(talk) 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Alots of states is doind this too switching back and forth over time. Minnesota suppose to no longer use state shileds, but current display to my desktop wallpaper much dispays state shields, I saw numerous of new state shields post only few years ago. hawaii displays alot of state shields too, same as North Dakota display at least 5 state shields from 2004 to now.--Freewayguy (Meet) 04:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

MD 715

I'd be happy to add info for it to the list of minor routes, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Can I get the graphic somewhere? Facts are: Runs from US 40 to Aberdeen Proving Ground. Total length? Maybe a mile.PaulTanenbaum 04:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For the graphic, put it in as follows: [[Image:MD Route XXX.svg|25px]]. Replace XXX with the route number, and if the route number is one or two digits, change the 25px to 20px (since the signs for 3-digit routes are wider. You can get the exact length of the route from MDRoads.com (if it's listed there; some routes in the 600/700-range are not), or from the Maryland State Highway Administration's Highway Location Reference documents. - Algorerhythms 04:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, on the minor routes list, the graphic size is 45 pixels, not 25 pixels. Easiest way to do it is just to copy another route's entry and replace the text. - Algorerhythms 04:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. PaulTanenbaum 15:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

MD 36 and MD 135

I've been trying to improve Maryland Route 36 and Maryland Route 135 over the past couple weeks, and I'm not sure what to add from here. Any suggestions for how to improve these articles? - Algorerhythms 02:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as project standards go, MD 36 needs a "Cities and towns" section, also the termini section is non-standard and the termini are already listed in the routebox, but it makes a good starting point so I'll leave it for now. Also, did you make the maps? If so, they need to be uploaded to the Commons as opposed to Wikipedia, this allows them to be used in any other Wikimedia project that might want to use them. I went and added a Maps of Maryland state highways category there so make sure they are added to that category when you put them there. That's all I can think of for now.-Jeff ^(talk) 12:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the code for the infobox has difficulty with images from Commons. When I tried to change the map to the image on the Commons, the code turned the link into [[image:commons:MD Route 36 Map.png]] instead of [[commons:image:MD Route 36 Map.png]]. - Algorerhythms 14:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as the image is on the Commons it can be used directly from Wikipedia as if it were uploaded here so you don't need the commons: part. As long as the copy at the commons is the same image as the copy here there shouldn't be any problems. All this really does is allow other Wikimedia projects (such as other language Wikipedias) to access them the same way. Also, naturally, all future maps will only need to be uploaded to the Commons.-Jeff ^(talk) 16:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

GA nom for Chesapeake Bay Bridge

The Bay Bridge article has been nominated for GA status. I encourage all members to help it reach GA status, if the reviewer finds any problems, be sure to help fix them!-Jeff ^(talk) 14:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The nomination failed, but with the suggestions given, we can hopefully get it ready for renomination. If the renom is successful, this project will finally have a GA to its name.-Jeff ^(talk) 03:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

While y'all have been fighting over "decommissioned" highways...

I've noticed that links to former Maryland state highways, for example Maryland Route 37, have become broken so that they currently redirect to a redirect page, so instead of going to the short article about the former state highway, they go to the redirect page and stop there. Fixing every one of these would take a while, but if anyone has access to a bot, that might speed up fixing that. - Algorerhythms 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It was because I had to move List of former state highways in Maryland to List of former Maryland state highways to conform to the other lists in this project, in the process that left a bunch of redirects redirecting to a redirect. I took care of them after moving the page, but fixing that many pages takes time (even for a bot, since they are only allowed to make X number of edits per minute). They should all be fixed now.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Having our own participants list, project banner, etc.

User:Rschen7754 has been removing our project's banner from all pages, replacing it with the U.S. Roads banner with a Maryland parameter, and just like when the participants list was removed, failed to ask for consensus here. While there are no cosmetic differences, there are some things that make it more convenient for us to have our own banner. For example, we can add the WP:WPMD assessment categories to our banner to allow it to sort all articles into the appropriate Maryland assessment cat. Additionally, this allows us to use a banner with a name consistent with the name of the project (as is the case with virtually every project on Wikipedia). While the addition of new parameters to the USRD banner can break our banner, its a simple matter for any member of this project to fix it. I'd just like to know what the opinions of this project's members are on this matter, as well as the removal of the participants list since, as I mentioned, Rschen didn't ask for consensus of the state-level projects before doing either of these.-Jeff ^(talk) 04:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

However, there are other reasons for carrying this out. I have done this will all other state highway projects. This helps those who are actually active in USRD affairs and assessment. In addition to this, this helps us greatly when a new parameter is added. Instead of 23 separate short bot runs, one large bot run can be performed to fix everything. As I am the operator of the bot, and have limited time as I am in school, this is a simple necessity. With the participants list, I consulted WT:USRD before making the changes, and got no response. It is definitely impossible to spam every SH WP talk page each time something needs to be discussed. Therefore, at least one person from each project needs to be watching WT:USRD; anything less is unacceptable. Because of the large scale of USRD, it is impossible to ensure that every single project is notified of every single little decision; therefore, if a project misses out on the discussion, too bad.

It has been the stated and implied policy of USRD that we will not interfere with a project unless absolutely necessary. In this case, we feel that it is necessary. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Reminder from USRD

In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:

1. Each project needs to remain aware of developments at WT:USRD and subpages to ensure that each project is aware of decisions / discussions that affect that project. It is impossible to notify every single project about every single discussion that may affect it. Therefore, it is the state highway wikiproject's responsiblity to monitor discussions.
2. If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
3. USRD, in most to nearly all cases, will not interfere with a properly functioning state highway wikiproject. All projects currently existing are "properly functioning" for the purposes mentioned here. All task forces currently existing are not "properly functioning" (that is why they are task forces). Departments of USRD (for example, MTF, shields, assessment, INNA) may have specific requirements for the state highway wikiprojects, but complaints regarding those need to be taken up with those departments.
4. However, this is a reminder that USRD standards need to be followed by the state highway wikiprojects, regardless of the age of the wikiproject.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Photos

I'm uploading a number of photos of roadways primarily in SHA District 3 (MoCo and PG Counties). Keep an eye on Category:Roads in Maryland over the next several days. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A discussion at USRD you might be interested in

See here. It's about streamlining the USRD template with the state WP templates. --Son (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Route 220 in Maryland

I'm currently working on an article for U.S. Route 220 in Maryland (which is currently a redirect to U.S. Route 220). The article I have so far is at User:Algorerhythms/220. Any input/corrections/baseball-bats-to-the-cranium/etc. to improve the article before it's put into place would be greatly appreciated. - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a {{tl|future road}} in there where there should be a {{future road}}, other than that it looks good.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, User:O changed the {{future road}} to {{tl|future road}} so the template wouldn't actually appear until the page is put into main space. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has been moved to main space. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Maps of Maryland state highways

I've completed maps of all of the U.S. highways and (2-digit) Interstate highways in Maryland that have state articles (If I missed any, let me know). I'm going to start on maps of state highways (outside of Garrett and Allegany Counties, which I've already completed). Are there any specific state highways that it might be useful to start with first? - Algorerhythms (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any. My only suggestion is to give all the maps a consistent naming convention, this way I can add some code to {{Infobox Maryland highway}} that will automatically include the map if it exists so we don't have to specify the parameter manually. Keep up the good work!-Jeff ^(talk) 18:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I renamed the images so that all the state highway maps are now "Maryland Route X map.png", the U.S. highway maps are "U.S. X [banner] (MD) map.png", and the Interstate maps are "I-X in MD map.png". I'd have been a bit more consistent than that, but it's a bit of a pain to rename images on Commons, so I was trying to minimize the number of images that needed to be renamed. - Algorerhythms (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Two years later...

Today, January 31, 2008, marks the 2nd anniversary of the Roads in Maryland WikiProject.[4] I thought now would be a good time to look back and reflect on how far we've come since then, where we are now, and where we're heading.

On January 31, 2006, there were only a handful of articles about roads in Maryland, USRD was in the middle of a massive collection of edit wars over the naming of articles, Maryland's shields were sparse, and the few shields that we did have were not SVG and were probably created by at least 2 different editors unaware of each other's efforts. Then came MDRD. The shields were the first task I took up, and this page served as the perfect place for me to keep others updated on my progress. At first I only created shields for routes that had articles, but that November, I finished all 1,000 and have since added even more. In April 2006, a discussion was held here to change the naming convention of articles from "Maryland State Highway X" to something that people actually use. We decided on the current convention, "Maryland Route X", and ultimately dodged the SRNC bullet as one of the few projects to be declared exempt from the process. Long before USRD members themselves began questioning whether every single numbered highway was deserving of its own article, we had List of minor Maryland state highways, a list that has served as a model for other states.

Now, fast forward to 2008. Last October, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge article failed to become the first good article to come out of this project, but I still hope to get at least one promoted. Algorerhythms has been working on maps, and is now up in the 200s. Another USRD-related arbitration case has started, and serious discussions have begun about reorganizing the project. 2006 and 2007 both saw the creation of several new articles, and we now have almost filled up List of Maryland state highways. With that, it's time to focus on improving these articles, the best way to do this is to expand stubs and if a stub seems hopelessly unexpandable, consider merging it with the minor routes list. Another thing to be prepared for is the proposed reorganization of USRD, that will give more responsibility to the state-level projects such as this one. January might be over, but 2008 is still young, here's hoping it will be a productive year here!-Jeff ^(talk) 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bay Bridge GA nom take two

I'm currently getting the Chesapeake Bay Bridge article ready for a second GA nom. It's been vastly improved since its previous nomination, but any input on how it can be further improved or help getting it up to GA standards would be greatly appreciated.-Jeff ^(talk) 05:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

<national highway> in Maryland articles

I've noticed that the introductions in some of the articles of the form U.S. Route X in Maryland are inconsistent with those of most Wikipedia articles, which generally begin with <subject of article> is a <what it is>. For example, a typical Wikipedia article might begin "The Chesapeake Bay Bridge is a major dual-span bridge in the U.S. state of Maryland." while U.S. Route 301 in Maryland used to begin along the lines of "U.S. Route 301 in Maryland runs from Delaware to the Governor Nice Bridge". I have since reworded it to "U.S. Route 301 in Maryland is a major highway that runs from Delaware..." It should also be noted that I found this problem after User:AL2TB actually made the situation worse by rewording the first sentence and changing the bolded term from U.S. Route 301 in Maryland to simply U.S. Route 301. Not only is this inconsistent with the title of the article but with its topic as well, since the article is on US 301 in Maryland and not US 301 as a whole, and is a violation of WP:LEAD#Bold title. So a few points I came up with to help fix these articles are:

• The bolded title should reflect the topic of the article and should preferably be consistent with its title.
• As a rule of thumb, the word "is" should generally come after the bolded title, and of course be followed by a description of what the article's subject is.
• Don't be redundant in telling what the subject is, it's not necessary (and is redundant) to say that U.S. Route 301 in Maryland is a U.S. highway or that it is in Maryland, just say that it's a major highway.

If we follow these simple rules, it would be quite easy to make these articles more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and of course the above ideas also apply to Interstate highways. Comments would be appreciated as I plan on adding this to the editing guide.-Jeff ^(talk) 19:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd only be convinced if you would change all the bold intros to your version for all highways in California... for example, U.S. Route 50 in California, California State Route 133, Interstate 10 in California, etc... ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Doing so would be disruptive to the California project, causing unnecessary controversy, just as you've done here. - Algorerhythms (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that one of the pages you linked (CA 133) is already in the form that Jeff02 is recommending (Route Name is a highway, etc.) - Algorerhythms (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

iirc, the controversy with California is that those edits do NOT go with Wikipedia standards.... --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For SR 133 (CA), for example, I also meant to ask, why does the bold heading say State Route 133 and why not California State Route 133? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:USSH; it tells you exactly why. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title: "Avoid links in the bold title words." "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface." U.S. Route 50 in Maryland is a descriptive title, and it makes sense to include a link to US 50, so nothing should be bolded. --NE2 03:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this discussion is of interest on a national level, I'll start a discussion at WT:USRD, further comments should be posted there.-Jeff ^(talk) 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Interstate shield issue, again

Just to let the other members of this project know, Freewayguy has recently been removing state-name Interstate shields from articles against this project's guideline on shields. The last time we had a discussion about this, I proposed the current guideline, and no one who took part in the discussion opposed my proposal, so it became a project guideline and the Interstate shield-based reverting stopped. So what it the opinion of this project's members now? Should we include state name shields or not? My personal opinion is to stick with the status quo.-Jeff ^(talk) 01:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see Freewayguy is now following the guideline so it looks like it was just a misunderstanding. Nevertheless, of course, this remains open for discussion, as is always true with all of the project's guidelines.-Jeff ^(talk) 04:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

the new sign drawing of the white interstate shield. They don't use specific-state name shield anymore. We can't say now is using which shield and when is using which shield. The pics on interstate-guide only shows when the shield is photo by somebody. They never say when the shield is post. Even if they do; this doesn't mean the shield is made that day, sometimes is just taken off from one place and move to other.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 02:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize that the current standard specifies that new shields do not include the state name, but state-name shields still remain a fairly common site in Maryland so I think they should stay.-Jeff ^(talk) 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what happen when we don't get the proper specs. You can't say when it is using what shield and now it is using what shield. Even if the sign is post hat day doesn't mean is made that day. Some shields post in 2000 can date as far back as 1988, or some newly post shields can be very old.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 01:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have an idea, how about we keep using the images of the state-name shields, but mention the years they were made in Maryland in their captions. That would clarify the fact that Maryland state-name shields are no longer made, but can still be seen along roads. The only problem is that I don't know when the state-name shields were made.-Jeff ^(talk) 01:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody actually cares much of independent usages of shields because most people pay attention to the green tour signs anyways, rather than the one hook to silver bars. We don't know how old the shields is because we drive too fast on highways, and also sometimes the shields is just ones taken off and move to another location. Some shields post in 2004 can be as old as 1988.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody actually cares much about whether the state name is in the shield, period. --NE2 10:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It might not matter to most people, but since state-name shields were used in Maryland at one time and can still be seen on the side of the road here, we should at least include an image of them in the articles. Freewayguy, I understand what you're saying about how we don't know how old a sign is even if it was just posted, that's why I need to know what years Maryland actually made state-name shields, and then I'll be able to put that information in the captions.-Jeff ^(talk) 11:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyways Maryland is shade in black in Interstate-Guide.com--Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should delete most of the MD state shields except I-595 and I-97 ones.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? The only real reason that we would have to go to that extreme would be to prevent people from using state-name shields in anything but the route description. While that was a problem in the past, it hasn't really been one since an Interstate shield recommendation was added to the project guidelines. Also, like I have stated before, Maryland has used state-name shields in the past, so there is nothing inaccurate about having them. They are here for historical interest and so deleting them would be like deleting Image:MD Route 2 old.svg.-Jeff ^(talk) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost everywhere the state-specific shields is many like South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Kentucky. They even have more state-specific shields than Maryland, tahts why interstate-guide maps color it magenta (pink-purple). Just state documents no longer applies state-specific shields, and actually the independent use is not that many newer ones. Even the black date print on the back of interstate shields only shows when we bought or post them never shows when is made. For ex. the shields post in 2004 can be as old as 1995. Nobody know how old the shields is even if you see new ones like few weeks ago, doesnt mean is that young. Maryland alot of shields is old and even Georgia (using both types of shields) many state-name shields still exist. Nobody can tell how old the shields is anyways.Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So it seems that Freewayguy is arguing that the shields are no longer officially in use (and has been going to the point of putting speedy delete tags on the images), while Jeff is arguing that though they're no longer official, they have been used in the past and are still present on some highways. How about we keep the images in the articles, but move them to the history section (if the article has one), so that it's clear they're no longer the official standard, and if Jeff can find what years they were made, even the better. - Algorerhythms (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense than what we have now. On a side note, I find it disturbing that Freewayguy has been tagging the shields for speedy deletion, as it's a blatant violation of WP:POINT.-Jeff ^(talk) 17:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As for what years state-name signs were made, I don't know. The best I can come up with is sometime during the '80s-'90s.-Jeff ^(talk) 03:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fine if you can't find it. I had figured that placing the shields in the history section rather than route description would be a good compromise, but I'm not sure if Freewayguy is willing to go along with it... - Algorerhythms (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just posted a question regarding the use of old-style shields in articles at WT:USRD/S#Old-style shields in general.-Jeff ^(talk) 00:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion's been moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Standards#Use_of_old-style_shields.-Jeff ^(talk) 03:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping to settle this once and for all, the page Freewayguy keeps referring to is http://www.interstate-guide.com/ishields/index.html. Maryland is colored black on the map indicating that state documents no longer specify that state-name shields should be used. However, there is a list at the bottom of that page showing which states it is difficult to find state-name shields in, and Maryland is not on that list. So that, along with my personal experience, indicates that there are still quite a few Interstate shields with "Maryland" on them. This project decided a while ago to use state name shields in articles as long as they are not used in the routebox or small icons. This was to reflect the fact that while state-name shields are no longer specified in Maryland, they have been used in the past and in many cases can still be seen. I think we should stay with that decision.-Jeff ^(talk) 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. - Algorerhythms (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)