Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:USRD

/Disambiguation completion list

Archive

Archives
1 2 3 4 5

Contents

[edit] March 16 meeting recap

Here's a quick overview of the topics discussed during the March 16 IRC meeting.

  • Consensus advocated status quo on the disambiguation page naming convention.
  • The proposal to demote inactive/struggling WikiProjects to task forces of USRD was introduced and unanimously supported. Kentucky and Utah will be demoted to task forces, with another three projects at risk of being downgraded as well. Projects that are demoted can be re-promoted at a later date if the state of the project improves. See WP:USRD/SUB.
  • The Illinois routebox was converted to use Infobox road. The browsing for some infoboxes now needs repairing.
  • Recent changes to the USRD project page were supported.

For the complete log, see Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Internet Relay Chat/Logs/2007-03-16. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why were none of the proposals from the AfD for List of highways brought up during the meeting? The only options mentioned were Route X, Highway X, etc... which were all stated as not viable options during the AfD. I still stand firm that the word list needs to be taken out, they aren't lists, they are dab pages. I still don't understand how "Highways numbered X" doesn't work, it was never addressed in the meeting. --Holderca1 07:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, there was talk about the Texas highways and grouping them, but I was having trouble following the conversation. First off, What is INNA?? I would be glad to address the problem if I knew what the problem was. --Holderca1 08:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason no other proposals were brought up was because there was a great deal of support for the current naming convention ("List of highways numbered X"). INNA is the Infoboxes and Navigation task force, which sets standards for infoboxes and browsing across USRD. The portion directly related to the Texas discussion last night is Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Infoboxes and Navigation/Navigation#Precedence, which sets guidelines for the browsing order. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem with Texas browsing is that it treats Interstate and U.S. highways as entirely separate things. Ideally, the browsing on Texas State Highway 9 would go from SH 8 to IH 10, the browsing on Interstate 10 in Texas would go from SH 9 to SH 10, and the browsing on Texas State Highway 10 would go from IH 10 to SH 11.
I think all the Loops, spurs, Farm to Market roads, etc. should stay as is, though. -- NORTH talk 19:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed 100% on both points. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
But Interstates and U.S. Highways are entirely seperate things, we do have two seperate projects for them after all. It just seemed the most logical to seperate them. How does one browse just the interstates of Texas? It doesn't make any sense to me to combine them all, can you point me to the discussion on the topic? --Holderca1 00:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It's been the status quo for a long time, they need to be combined, ever since the days of WP:CASH in 2005. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
So regardless if it makes any sense, just because it was done that way by California it should be done every where else? Sorry, but WP:TXSH does not fall under WP:CASH. Also, California doesn't have duplicates, in Texas, you can have a state highway and an interstate with the same number. I will buy off on combining Interstate and U.S. Highways, but State Highways will remain seperate. --Holderca1 02:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
There are other states, like Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New York that duplicate routes as well. Under INNA, they will be combined, and that policy is not to be changed unless a suttle discussion is enacted. Projects under USRD follow policies, and TXSH is no exception.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 02:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
INNA has only existed 2 months, TXSH has been doing their browse this way for much longer. Until someone directs me to a loction where this has been discussed at, then TXSH will continue to browse this way. You can't make up a guideline without a discussion, show me the discussion. --Holderca1 03:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, you do not have the authority to arbitrarily declare that TX will not follow the guidelines set in INNA. Furthermore, you can look up the discussion yourself. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not touching this with a ten and half foot pole, only to say that it got inappropriately ugly really quickly. -- NORTH talk 03:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The main thing is, Holderca1, you work it out with INNA. You don't just declare that your project will no longer be subject to WP:USRD. Last I heard, Texas roads were U.S. roads. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, my comment was directed more towards you, Rschen, than Holderca. The "discussion" here doesn't really scream consensus to me, despite what the section header says. Thus, I think Texas should be allowed to keep its browsing system until there's a clear consensus to apply INNA unilaterally on all the states.
I think there is some justification to doing things the INNA way in states like New Jersey and California that go out of their way to not assign the same number to two classes of highways, and to doing things the "Texas" way for states that do. -- NORTH talk 06:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
See, this was the rationale behind the now-no-longer-in-existence Illinois Route Box... it's a list of Illinois Routes, not Every Route In Illinois. If it was another route (and in this case, I did lump together U.S. Routes and Interstate Routes), that's what See also was for. In case you managed to get U.S. 24 and I-24 confused or something silly. —Rob (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
IL is somewhat odd there, since US and I routes are allowed to be in the same state. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am just failing to see the point of having separate subprojects if everything has to follow what US Roads says to the letter. And no, not all Texas roads are US Roads, they are roads that are in the US, but they are not US Roads. If you are wondering why the number of contributors for this project is suffering, here is where you need to look. Rschen, neither you, nor anyone else owns this wikiproject, and telling someone they don’t have the “authority” to do something is not going to get people to rush back to help. Also, see your comment here: [1], “actually, if CA even decides to follow the ELG.” So, let me get this straight, everything here is optional for CA, but mandatory for everyone else? I had always thought that separate wikiprojects existed because every state’s highway system is different, with this being a perfect example. It makes sense for CA to browse this way, because CA treats interstate, U.S., and state highways the same and this is indicated by the way they number their highways. Texas doesn’t do it this way, this from the TXDOT web site:

State Highway System (SHS) The highways in the state built and maintained by TxDOT.
Each category of highways is its own system within the State Highway System, i.e.
Farm to Market Road system, State Highway Loop system, etc. [2]

Getting back to my issues with this project as a whole, I think we need to change how we go about getting a consensus on things around here. One editor saying, "this looks good to me" and another saying "yeah, me too" is not a discussion, nor is it consensus. We should do it by state, a consensus (say 2/3) of the active state wikiprojects is required to pass a guideline, policy, etc… This will prevent a mass of editors from a particular state and influencing the overall project. This project has been broken for a long while, even before SRNC, and if it is the hope to get the support back up, then changes need to be made on how this project is ran. --Holderca1 09:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I see your point, but considering the current state of U.S. Roads as a whole (which is not good), sometimes "be bold" has to trump "consensus". As for Texas being excluded from INNA...Washington is somewhat excluded since the SR numbering is derivative (SR 102 coming from US 101 and such), so it's not as if there can't be exceptions. Even so, their "derivative" browsing (that is, the browsing of the base routes) follows INNA as far as I've seen.
Ample time was given to discuss everything that has been included as part of INNA. The existence of the page was not made a secret; in fact, it was well advertised, both in the newsletter and on this page. Since no one commented against INNA, they were made guidelines through silence equals consent. The place to discuss exemption would be at WT:USRD/INNA. I'm willing to listen, but the bottom line is that some standard has to be in place to fall back on. The same applies for the new structure on the USRD page. Why is it necessary? Simple; so people don't start WikiProjects with no support simply to establish a standard. Too many people have done that already and the result is that there are inactive projects with no editors. Most of the Canada road WPs have been declared inactive; two of ours have become task forces and three more are on their way there.
The point of separate, state-level subprojects is to increase collaboration among editors with a similar focus, that being editing state highways in that state. These editors may also discover a flaw in the USRD structure, and can modify their structure to match. Bottom line, I'm not against WikiProjects for every state - I'm against WikiProjects that will have no support and no dedicated editors.
The discussion that occurred above could have been done a bit more civil; that I admit. But the reality is that tensions are going to run high here right now because of the sorry state of USRD collectively. The reason standards are being established on the USRD level is primarily for the states that have no WikiProject and have no hope of getting one anytime soon. Yes, these standards do apply to the subprojects that exist and are already well-established, but we can be more lenient in that department.
Holderca1, your contributions to Wikipedia are far too important to quit over something like this. My suggestion would be to bring the browsing issue up at WT:USRD/INNA and we'll take care of it there. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay, politics. This is why I hardly even do anything on here anymore. Too many people are trying to create too much control over projects that they assert they have jurisdiction over. It's all a bunch of crap. And as far as the demotion period, that's just stupid. MISH just finished creating articles for all the state highways a month or two ago, so of course a bunch of them are stubs. They'll get worked on eventually, but the gavel wielding and contract manifestations just make it more of a hostile environment in which to work. I think to the detriment of Wikipedia as a whole, not just the roads project. Stratosphere (U T) 16:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

To compare the projects that were demoted to MISH is giving too much credit to the demoted projects. Kentucky and Utah have seen no activity in months, they no longer have any active editors, and key issues (such as the existence of three infoboxes for Kentucky) have been ignored. The reason they were demoted was that at the current rate, they won't be worked on eventually.
It is not necessarily a demotion "period" - if active editors are not found after the generic to-do list (found at WP:USRD/TD) is completed by this project, then it will remain a task force for the foreseeable future, as there'd be no point in making it a non-supported (by editors) WikiProject again. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That may be, but when I make edits anymore I don't even think about the U.S. Roads project. I'm here to contribute useful information to articles, not wade through wikiprojects to find pages that list standards for every freaking thing we can nitpick about. The politics is getting thick and the reason I starred myself on the active contributors list is because I want to get the newsletter in case another deletion issue comes up that needs shutting down. I understand the need for consistency and standards across certain subjects, but reading the discussion and some other comments, widespread imposition of "consensus by silence" is the wrong way to do it. I agree with a poster above that while the state highway projects are subsets of the USRD project, the sub projects were created to deal with the nuances that deviate from the prevailing national standard. Either way, I'll leave you guys to writing the "standards" and I'll stick to contributing to articles whenever I see fit. Stratosphere (U T) 18:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll also point out that my counterargument to your "consensus by silence" is the second section on that very same page. The fact that issues are being arisen here, now, indicates that there probably wasn't genuine consensus to begin with. Stratosphere (U T) 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll start off by apologizing, I may have failed to keep my cool, but it wasn't this isolated instance that set me off, it has been brewing for several weeks. IMHO posting on this talk page about a guideline is not enough, it needs to be posted on all the subproject subpages as well, not everyone involved in the subprojects monitors this talk page, nor are they members of this project. At least during the SRNC, every project was notified and every individual was notified via talk pages. Also, on another issue, why is the juction table recently placed on the project page drastically different than what we discussed at ELG? I understand the difference in the two, but the appearance of the two should basically be the same, just without the exit column. I just don't understand why we need to nitpick every little thing, it just makes it more difficult to keep everything within those standards. I have always believed that if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it. --Holderca1 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It took three long hours to post to everyone's page (and taht was before we had more people joining). It is simply not practical to do that again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
INNA was also mentioned prominently in the newsletter, but I see your point. Then again, I wasn't aware that any state used a different browsing system until recently. I'm not following you on the junction table...the design of it is the same as the ELG but without the exit column.
In terms of the last comment, sure, the Texas WP isn't broken, the New York WP isn't broken, the Michigan WP isn't broken, but there are plenty of WPs that are. Those are the projects that these standards are aimed at. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
See the Indiana State Road 2 article under the Road(s) column, the street names are listed below the numbered route rather than all on the same line, also, I can't remember what we said on colors, but I thought we said no colors. --Holderca1 20:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The junction table predates the ELG in both the color department and the display of roads. The table began as a junction list contained within Template:Routeboxny, with colors derived from Template:Routeboxny/legend. When the decision was made to go to infobox road, the junctions were moved to their own table, designed in a way that no information would be lost. After some discussion (somewhere in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes/Archive 1), it was decided to convert the table into a template. This template then spread to numerous other states and, by request of another editor, I redesigned the template to look similar to the-then fledgling ELG. This is the only reason why the two seem similar, as the junction table was not based on the ELG, nor was the ELG based on the table. For this reason, the items discussed in the ELG discussion have no bearing on the junction table, a point that was agreed to during the ELG discussion. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I was meaning to reply to this awhile back, but others things popped up. Just want a bit of clarification, using the juction table is not a mandatory thing right? If a state wants to use the ELG format for their junction lists that is perferectly acceptable, correct? --Holderca1 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have advocated against colors for a long time, mostly after I figured out what sort of an accessibility problem it poses. Also, I discourage forcing readers to refer to legends, similar to maps created in the Maps Task Force. —Rob (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting everyone on the same page

Let's put the actual issue aside for a while and focus on the basics.

  • Firstly (and yes that's a word :)) I apologize if I was uncivil or a bit harried above.
  • Secondly, there are simply too many editors and too many projects to keep notifying them of every little change that happens at USRD. Too many of them are inactive too, so it's not worth notifying everyone. That's why we created the Template:Project U.S. Roads and the newsletter. Thus, it needs to be your responsibility to participate in discussions and to remain aware. It's just like in high school, teachers have too many students and can't pressure each one about missing assignments, right? It's the student's responsibility to do their work. If you're not aware of discussions that you want to be a part of, then there's nothing we can't do (we can't read your mind and know that you wanted to be a part of that discussion...) I personally believe that we have thus gone above and beyond the call of a WikiProject to keep their members informed (as most projects, to my knowledge, do not have that many mechanisms of keeping their members informed). Another tool you have is your watchlist- a main page you should have on your watchlist is this one. If nothing else, this one. This is where it happens. Even furthermore, we have our own IRC channel. This is one of two that do (the other is hurricanes, I believe). Thus, we can collaborate in real time. Those that are against it, I would advise you to try it out before you simply reject it. On a personal level, I did not want to join IRC. However, after joining it, I would never go back. You never quite get the full picture of things on Wiki.
  • Thirdly, WP:USRD is not a shell project anymore. Sure, I created it as one. However, that is no longer the case. WP:USRD is the head of the U.S. Roads area, and it was also founded before about 75% of the other highway projects (only IH, USH, CASH, CACR, WASH, and KYSH predate this, if I remember correctly). However, even those projects need to follow these guidelines decided here for uniformity across teh board.
  • Fourthly, when you have a concern about a policy or guideline, you don't refuse to follow it. You work to change it. For example, you don't just send to WP:MFD the policy WP:3RR just because you disagree with it. You go to the talk page of WP:3RR and work to have it changed. Furthermore, you don't constantly complain about 3RR, for that gets nothing done. You work to change it and cooperate with other people.
  • Fifthly, there are no leaders at a highway project. We should never have allowed that from the start. It's just like how administrators have no special privileges in the determination of consensus. I'm strongly considering removing every occurrence of "leader" from every road project... because that is misleading. There are no official "leaders". But then how do you lead? You lead by doing work. You lead by putting in the work and by participating in the consensus discussions. "Leaders" don't get special privileges in discussions. "Leaders" cannot and do not arbitrarily decide to rebel (with or without their project) against a policy just because they do not like it.
  • Sixthly, the turnout at the IRC meeting Friday was downright shameful. We got 8 editors, and I commend them for that. However, we have over 100 editors. Assuming there are 100, that means that 8% of them participated. And considering that at least 5% more were complaining about the project's use of IRC and blatantly refusing to join in on the discussions (and then later complaining about not having any say in important issues), that is downright shameful.
  • Seventhly, whether you realize it or not, WP:USRD is in deep trouble. Did anyone actually notice the AFD's? We barely squeaked by on a few of those. The whole project is simply in a state of trash right now. Yes, a state of trash. 22 projects out of the 37 that we have are in poor shape. That is over 50%. We have only 1 FA out of over 10000 articles. That is extremely sad. If this doesn't alarm you, then quite frankly, you should not be a roads editor.
  • I'll start with that for now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And we're going to combine IH and USH and put them in as part of USRD, right? —Rob (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know at this point... but I think that we need to get everyone on the same team before we discuss something that fundamental. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Now's not the time to discuss that. We have more important issues to settle first. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

IRC should never be used to make decisions. Either discuss it on-wiki or don't discuss it at all and edit war over it, but don't discuss it on IRC and then claim there's consensus. --SPUI (T - C) 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC) This message is brought to you by the leaders of #wikipedia-en-roads-us, who know that no one listens to SPUI, and hope you will be turned to their side.

Holy crap... that's something I never thought I'd see. I'm not sure whether to be amused or frightened. -- NORTH talk 21:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, we have an SPUI sighting. I wouldn't mind seeing some of our editors of the past all coming back, perhaps we can reach out to those that are still active on Wiki and see exactly why they left the project and what needs to be done to see them return. My statements where I states that Texas articles wouldn't follow was in response to the statement that they needed to change and that it wasn't open for discussion. I think there needs to be some flexiblity in all of our guidelines, do they really need to hard and fast rules? It's been a few years since high school, but a teacher can't expect the students to do an assignment if they don't know about it. As far as IRC goes, I tend to real life before I tend to anything on here. My evenings are dedicated to my family. I come on here when I have the chance, but trying to be here at a specific time is extremely difficult, and even if I can make it, the change that I can stay on for an extended period of time is unlikely. --Holderca1 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's so unbelievable. Only 8% of editors have the time to drop everything and sit in a chat room to discuss this stuff. And I thought the bullshit over at the auto project was bad. --Sable232 22:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That comment is simply not acceptable. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts, in no particular order.

  • I somewhat agree with Rschen that there's no need to announce every little change on individual users' talk pages. That's what a watchlist is for. That being said, every little change should be announced here at WT:USRD. These two comments [3] [4] don't really make the cut. There's nothing there implying that Texas (and potentially other states) will have to change their standards. When I saw those, I just assumed they were trying to implement what was already decided (i.e. not changing anything), and to help out with browsing on states that don't already have it in place (which Texas did/does).
  • I'm glad that WP:USRD is not a shell project anymore, and it's more than capable of doing the job of the "other state highways" WikiProject I proposed. But just because the shell you created two years ago predates most of the state WPs doesn't mean that it's automatically the end-all-be-all. The active state WPs (i.e. Texas) do predate the non-shell-ness of USRD.
  • I agree wholeheartedly that there are no leaders.
  • Please shut up about IRC already. You had a productive meeting. Some of us chose to participate; some of us decided that we spend enough time on Wikipedia without spending time on IRC as well.
  • WP:USRD is not trash, although it will benefit greatly from the reorganization. The reason we have so few FAs is simply because of the sheer volume of the articles involved. There simply aren't that many third-party sources we can rely on – especially for minor state routes – the way a hurricane WikiProject does, even for the weakest of hurricanes. Other than our tendency to randomly dive at each other's throats, we do a more than capable job at managing our work.

-- NORTH talk 23:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

About your IRC point, we all understand and even have the same opinion with your comment. However, there are some things in life you do not want to do, such as participate on IRC, but you have to do it when you want to get more out of what you were doing. People such as Rschen, TMF, Scott, Polaron, and myself had reasons to go on IRC and discuss what we did. Even MPD tried numerous times to connect to IRC, but failed because of his network. I believe that just trying to go the extra step (going on IRC in this case) is rewarding, and that you and others complaining about IRC aren't understanding the true state of USRD being inactive and destroyed. (No offense, NORTH, but that last sentence was directed at you for mostly doing work on NJSCR and other good projects) Also, please stay civil and cool; it's apparent that you aren't even thinking about those two while you were making the above statements.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 00:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:USRD is not trash, but it is not being maintained, that is my allegation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
"Please shut up about IRC already. You had a productive meeting. Some of us chose to participate; some of us decided that we spend enough time on Wikipedia without spending time on IRC as well." As editors, we have to respect your decision; however, then do not complain when we have important discussions on IRC that affect the project. And you say this with never having been on IRC... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll be the first to admit that I failed to stay cool, but only on my statement about IRC, because I'm tired of discussing it. To be explicitly clear, I'm glad you had a productive meeting there. I'm just reiterating that I won't be participating because I don't have time to, and don't call the 8% dreadful. It's about what I expected, especially since most of the 100 figure you cite are inactive editors. I never complained about this IRC discussion; my negative comments towards IRC were all based on attempting to change guidelines without achieving true consensus. This IRC discusssion did exactly what it was supposed to do: implement necessary reorganization to the project (but no actual changes when you think about it), and provoke healthy discussion here.
Rschen, your allegation was, and I quote, "The whole project is simply in a state of trash right now. Yes, a state of trash." And Vishwin is right, my view is somewhat jaded, since I work mainly in "good" projects. The reason I work mainly in NJ (other than being raised there) is that NJDOT has blessed us with the SLDs. Finding things like mileage – even occasionally basic things like noncontradictory information on termini – can be horrendous for other states. Thus I contribute where I can, with the information available to me. Perhaps once I'm done putting infoboxes on NJ, OR, and WA, I can research a little more deeply into what's available for other states. -- NORTH talk 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a question. Why is ANYTHING decided in IRC shaping the project without being discussed here first? Some of us don't use IRC and yet would still like to help make the big decisions. I think anything of this magnitude needs to be discussed on wiki first. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought this was clear enough, but I (and many other editors) am not a student anymore with hours of free time at our disposal. I don't have time for IRC. I'm cooking. Or cleaning. Or eating. Or spending time with my wife. Or working. Life stuff. Use it to gain stronger consensus on a future vote if you want, but don't vote about anything there, because I can guarantee I won't be there. —Rob (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Then you are implying that you do not want to get this project out of the state of trash.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 19:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily, but I am only one person, and areas that have been traditionally my areas of contribution (and, I am intentionally saying this so that I don't say that these are "my articles") are what I know best. If you're asking me to pick up the Kentucky State Routes project, that's not going to happen, because, surprise surprise, I don't know anything about Kentucky State Routes.
Furthermore, this "state of trash" business seems squirrelly to begin with. If there aren't any contributors, there aren't any contributors - either go out and recruit more (good luck with that) or the project just goes idle until there are any. What more can you do? This is why, at the beginning of all things, I was okay with having an IL State Routes project and no WI routes project - other pages just do the job better, and without essentially a full-time contributor generating original content (or content from multiple sources), anything on Wisconsin routes would be redundant. Since then, a few contributors have started helping with that.
As for featured article status... have there been articles put up for peer review? (I know I-290 has...) Does it really even help? Again, in spite of Wikipedia's size, we are missing out on people who actually want to be involved in the subject, and in this case, can copyedit fairly well.
I do, however, have very real concerns about the state of most Interstate highway articles. —Rob (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not that those of us that don't participate in IRC don't want to improve the project, or even spend less time on it. But expecting everyone to be on there at the same time is a little wishful thinking. I agree with the assessment of the Interstate articles, that should be priority number 1, getting all of these up to standard. The interstate articles even have articles on other wikis, not many state highways can claim that, see the french version of I-27: fr:Interstate 27. --Holderca1 19:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Chill pill, Vishwin. Just because I've given in and appeared on IRC from time to time doesn't mean that I have any more desire to help improve this project. It's at the same high level it's always been. And you can see from their contributions that Rob and Holderca have that desire as well. -- NORTH talk 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but the efficiency has gone down. That's what I've also been trying to point out. The high level of participation is great, but time is money.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 21:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually it's not. Not unless you're being paid to be on Wikipedia. In which case I want the link so I can join up too. Seriously though, can we all agree that decisions of magnitude need to stay off IRC and be discussed on Wiki? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
No. And I wasn't referring to be paid to be on Wikipedia, it's that we need to work more efficiently and following the guidelines so that these articles are in the most respectable shape. IRC will still be used to make hard core decisions. That includes when an argument comes down to no consensus, we make the final decision on IRC.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[Indent reset, edit conflict, and my take] Time isn't money if you're not getting paid for the time being spent on here, but I get what you're saying V60. I noticed some discussion on IRC. I'm inclined to agree with those who suggest decisions be made here. I believe that IRC should be used as a committee discussion, in which that committee comes to WT:USRD and come forth with the agreed upon proposals.

I am unable to get onto IRC simply because of time. It's not that I don't want to participate, but I don't have a whole lot of time. And the past few months, I've had no time, and recently, I've gotten the time to come on here and work on the state of some articles. I want to be active, but that's only if the rest of my life outside of the internet allows that.

I am not saying that IRC isn't useful. I think it's a great idea getting people together to make decisions. Instant messaging beats posting on a wiki, but ultimately, decisions should be made here, where all editors have the chance to be involved in the discussion - be it ten in the morning or ten at night. Hence the rationale for using IRC as a central committee putting forth ideas, which are then debated here. That's my take.

You have to excuse me, I know that other people have said that they don't have time. I am much in the same boat as what Rob said, though I don't have a wife. And as to what V60 said in response to that, I do want to see more FA and GA articles, I want to see the entire project be much more than in the state of trash. But you can't expect everyone to be able to contribute to a debate at a set time on IRC and then make that policy for the project. Again, I'm not trying to shoot down IRC. But . . . there are reservations about it.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, because I certainly am on Wikipedia a lot, and I certainly enjoy editing on Wikipedia more than most people I know, but I do have other things to do beyond the realm of Wikipedia. I need a source of income in order to pay for my connection to Wikipedia! No one in Wikipedia should expect an editor to be on here all times of the day so they can participate on IRC debates to set policy on Wikipedia. The purpose of the talk forum is for just that - to debate the state of the project, article, etcetera. And I digress to my suggestion: use IRC as a central committee who puts forth agreed upon concepts to this page for discussion of all editors interested in the discussion and are disenfranchised simply because they aren't available at the time of the IRC chat. --myselfalso 22:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I also completely disagree with IRC being used as the ultimate arbiter. IRC SHOULD NOT be used for that purpose. If there is No consensus then there is No consensus. That creates a devolution to an oligarchy. --myselfalso 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

<<<<Resetting indent and edit conflict x2. Explain again how you can establish consensus, when everyone is not a part of that discussion? Are you telling us that we have to conform to someone else's time schedule to have our opinions heard? While you can use IRC to get a working consensus, the result needs to come back here to establish that there is in fact a consensus and that it is in plain sight for everyone to see and for everyones comments to be on the public record. Vegaswikian 22:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vegas and object to that to the highest degree to this whole IRC thing. IRC should not be the final resting place in the decision process as a good number of us either don't have access to or don't have time to use IRC. Any decisions made there must come on wiki for discussion first if you expect anyone to abide by them. If there is no record of it on wiki and no discussion here I don't see how you can consider it a valid guideline let alone force people to follow it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
How can anybody not be able to have access to IRC when it's cross platform? Exceptions to this is when you have an overhyper firewall or you are at a place where Internet chat is restricted.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 22:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I will fall into camp against the IRC. I come in to edit as I see fit, as I enjoy it. Unfortunately, I am currently unable to work due to a broken vertebrae, and I do have all the time in the world. But I see the real world, people work, have kids, have hobbies outside wikiland, and lives in general. We are invited to participate, but to be in the discussion its on someone's grounds- at a IRC chat at a certain time. The great thing about having discussions on here is its a 10am or 10pm discussion. Anytime, anywhere. Some may work nights, get off work and edit at 10 am...others work days, and edit at 10pm. They obviously aren't going to be able to be in IRC at the same time, thus if decisions are made in IRC, someone isn't being represent even if they want to. Its logged, ok. If a decision is made there, its not including everyone. I see both POV's here, but I feel IRC restricts openess of dicusion, because not everyone can be there at once. Plus the reason I do things here its optional. Making people come to meeting to participate doesn't make things optional. The way its almost being put here it seems (maybe I'm wrong, misreading, whatever, correct me if I am wrong)- if you don't come to the IRC on our time frame you aren't wanting to participate. Thats not right, nor is it correct....Feedloadr 23:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

A few comments:

  1. IRC and when you can't get on:
    • If you can't get on because of previous engagements, such as family, friends, and such, don't worry about it. I know I can't get onto IRC for most of tomorrow since I'm going to NYC for a day, so that should be something that nobody ever mentions. That includes myselfalso not having enough time.
    • If you can't get on because you don't feel like it, then somebody's gonna be coming after you. This has already happened to NORTH and Mihsfbstadium, who opposed having IRC in the first place. Once they got on to IRC though, their opinions changed, having sort of a positive attitude towards IRC.
  2. About IRC being the ultimate arbiter, who would be the ones who decides who would be the next president when the vote comes down to no consensus? Who would give a kid a detention when a discussion about the kid getting in or not getting in trouble comes down to no consensus? Think, people.
  3. IRC meetings, when they are scheduled, are always logged afterwards. There is no way to log on the spot to the desired location, unless if you want a toolserver tool to get in a bunch of edit conflicts on that page.

Anyway, those are my two dollars for now.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. Suggesting IRC should be the ultimate arbiter using a presidential election is false. 1) The House of Representatives of the United States Congress - elected by the people of the United States of America - determines the Presidency when there is no consensus from the Electoral College. 2) I think the Electoral College should be eliminated and should be left to popular vote. And if it were a popular election, there is no such thing as no consensus. When someone wins by one vote, they still win.
Also, by suggesting that there's no consensus when people are deciding when a child breaks a rule is also false. They are breaking a rule. There is one of two choices: right or wrong. That's pretty cut and dry. The fight comes between the parents and principal beyond that; that decision ultimately comes up to a school board - a school board chosen by the people.
As for being logged afterward, it's great that it is! And discussion should be. But, IRC should not be the ultimate arbiter, the ultimate decision maker. That should be left to the wiki. Wikipedia might not be a democracy, but I recall what I said before - Wikipedia should not be an oligarchy. --myselfalso 23:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. I have neither the time (job, girlfriend, etc...), ability (firewalled) or inclination to go on to IRC, but that doesn't mean I want to be left out of the process nor that anyone in my situation should be. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. Just because I participate there doesn't mean I think it should be used for building consensus. It can't. It's good for collaboration, nothing more. -- NORTH talk 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, we ought to be able to close this discussion now. In order to say something like, we're going to make our formal decisions on IRC instead of talk pages, you need consensus to do so. The discussion here and the prior one at WT:USRD/IRC make it clear that's never going to happen. -- NORTH talk 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Going forward it's obvious that no decisions on IRC, especially major ones are binding until there is some on wiki discussion. I know it's not fast enough for some people, but then to use another saying, "Rome wasn't built in a day." If it takes a week to do what IRC could do in an hour, so be it. We're not in any major rush to build the encyclopedia here, especially at the cost of true consensus. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I second that. I've been watching, and only recently put my word in. I see more people saying no than yes. At the least that is no consenus, and that alone is reason enough to me to not allow decisions to be made on IRC.Feedloadr 23:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to the meeting point, how come Mozilla's IRC channel tailored for meetings is successful? They have diverse people there as well, so how can it not work for USRD? And actually yes, we are in a rush to fix up these trashed articles, as they are in a state of trash. We are not going to create new projects/articles until these stubbed and trashed articles are cleaned up. It is hoped that everybody will do their part in cleaning up.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 23:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are we in a rush to clean up stubs. A stub isn't "trash", it's a stub. I'd rather we take our time and move forward creating good articles with consensus rather then rush through changes in IRC and then have people come back and object later when they realize they've been steamrolled and then undo or ignore the IRC because it was invalid to begin with (like we have right here). But it's irrelevant as North pointed out. We have a consensus that IRC isn't the place to make big decisions. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
And we also have consensus that say that IRC is the place to make decisions. Three Four other invisible users that aren't here now say so. With the stubs, yes, they are trash, since they do not meet the design guidelines of USRD. The USRD design guidelines guarantee that the article should have at least Start-class. So yes, we are in a hurry to get these articles up to standards, since we are an embarassment to other WikiProjects and even Wikipedia itself.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
WTF??? What consensus??? -- NORTH talk 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. WTF. We don't have consensus to use IRC for the WP, and even if we did it would be moot as doing so violates Wikipedia policy on IRCs, I'd point you to Wikipedia:IRC channels. I'm sorry but you just can't use IRC to bypass process because you want things to move faster. And frankly using stubs as an excuse seems a big inane to me. Stubs don't make us look like a joke. That's just your opinion. Frankly stubs are labeled as such because they are missing info that should be included, not because they're trash. All stubs should be classified as "start" because that's what a stub is, a start. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Are we in the same universe? Stubs do not equal trash. Not meeting a guideline does not make an article trash. We may want to get everything done now, but the reality is that will not happen. I might have more time here if there was not a ton of other work to do. I could spend all day on speedy deletions and still not catch up with the backlog there. Face the facts. IRC is fine for discussions but will not set guidelines. Vegaswikian 00:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I still can't figure out how IRC is magically going to solve all our problems. I still have the feeling that the intent is to remove as many editors as possible from the discussion so a false consensus is made. --Sable232 00:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to assume anything nefarious about fellow editors, especially nice road loving folks, but you may have a point. The IRC chatlogs that have been reproduced here do seem to feature 2, perhaps 3 editors. That's not a consensus considering there are dozens of active road users and probably hundreds of users total who though inactive may have an opinion on a big policy change. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[Indent reset and Double Edit Conflict] Consensus can change. Don't forget that. Secondly, where's the consensus? I don't recall seeing any discussion about using IRC as the means of getting things done in the project. Let me state this again. I AM NOT OPPOSED TO USING IRC AS A MEANS OF HOLDING DISCUSSION. Let me repeat myself: I AM NOT OPPOSED TO USING IRC AS A MEANS OF HOLDING DISCUSSION. Let me also add that when I saw the discussion from an IRC log, I didn't disagree with what was discussed. I was fine with that, but I'm inclined to agree with those who feel disenfranchised. By shifting the discussion from the talk pages to IRC, it is effectively disenfranchising those who are unable to participate in the discussion on IRC. This simply cannot happen. I will say what I said before. Use IRC as a central committee which puts out ideas born in the IRC discussion. Take this to a (suggestion:) WT:USRD/Proposals page and let the project as a whole decide on the proposed change. --myselfalso 00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break #2

I'd like to add my own 2¢ in here.

First off, IRC is a useful tool for managing projects such as this, yes. People without IRC are at somewhat of a disadvantage. Nevertheless, though, keep in mind that not everyone can access it: what if you're browsing on a set-top box, or don't have privileges to install an IRC client, or you're behind a draconian web filter that blocks IRC traffic? Not to mention, of course, time issues.

However, there's technically nothing against the rules with deciding things on IRC; one of the primary rules of Wikipedia is be bold (and IAR). Anyone can decide anywhere what they're going to edit, that's the way wikis work. If you want to build consensus for changes on IRC, go ahead, be bold and do it.

However, many people have stated their objections to solely building consensus on IRC. While not required per se, it would certainly be nice to let their objections be heard, perhaps by at least announcing planned changes from IRC at least a day or two before carrying them out. (I like the idea of a "Proposals" subpage.)

I think the biggest problem is that everyone is going for each other's throats here. Keep cool, stay civil, assume good faith, and let's work out a solution that's best for everyone. Krimpet (talk/review) 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Use IRC as a central committee which puts out ideas born in the IRC discussion. Take this to a (suggestion:) WT:USRD/Proposals page and let the project as a whole decide on the proposed change. --myselfalso 00:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually Krimpet, "The Wikipedia channels on freenode are an unofficial place for Wikipedians to chat using IRC. As far as their influence on Wikipedia goes, IRC is equivalent to e-mail, or a conversation in a pub: chat is a private conversation which, in ordinary circumstances, has no effect on how one is treated on Wikipedia." seems to indicate that IRC should not be used for any official discussion, ie setting policies. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my view regarding IRC:

  • If you are not able to get on IRC for some reason (technical issues, or committments): That's not a problem and I am okay with that. In fact, many IRC members are notified of discussions they miss, and then they can give their input.
  • If you don't want to use IRC and don't care about important discussions: I'm mostly okay with that.
  • If you don't want to use IRC and do care about important discussions: In that case, I do have a problem with that.
  • Furthermore, it's mostly collaboration, which is beneficial to the project. Most policy discussions don't happen as often on IRC. It's just the collaboration that makes it worthwhile. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do you have a problem with people who don't want to use IRC but want to be invovled? People come here to be on wikipedia, not IRC. Our edits are here, and policy and decisions need to be made here where others can put in their input. Policy decisions here are a democracy, and by taking the decision off site you take away the ability for anyone to input. We are showing we want our voices heard because we feel if its moved IRC it will not be heard. Once again, non consensus leaves the status quo, to leave policy making discussions on Wikipedia. I think discussions of policy and ideas and such are fine, but a decision needs to be left to the people, and thats what I think the ones disagreeing with the Pro-IRC crowd are afraid of. You say most don't happen on IRC, I think they want all decisions not made on IRC is the goal Uhg, headache. I'm tired, excuse any errors there. Feedloadr 03:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Feeloadr here. I have no objection to IRC being used to shape discussion or come up with ideas, but final sign off on ideas, especially large ones, needs an on wiki consensus. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 05:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I missed this one, I think I have provided my viewpoint the other four times we discussed this. If we want to improve articles, we need to stop discussing the same thing over and over. --Holderca1 10:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why we keep discussing it. The consensus and vast majority seems to support no IRC for important decision from what I can see in this and the previous discussion. I'm only seeing 3 users who support IRC for decision making at all and only 2 who support it for major decision making. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northenglish

Eh, let me name a section after myself while I watch the Gators finish thrashing the Buckeyes.

  • As I've said before, I'm 100% in agreement with Myselfalso. I am not against IRC being used for discussion. IRC should be used for discussion.
  • IRC cannot be used for building consensus. It's just a physical impossibility. That being said, Krimpet did have some valid points. People should not be afraid to be bold. If you want to discuss something on IRC and then implement it (i.e. the maint parameter in infobox road), go ahead and do it. However, be prepared to then discuss it on-wiki if someone objects. That's the way the flowchart on Wikipedia:Consensus works.
  • I'm not familiar with the Mozilla IRC channel Vishwin used as an example, but I think I can still answer the question. Mozilla is not Wikipedia, meaning that it does not have seeking consensus as one of its five pillars. That being said, just because we can't change policy on IRC doesn't mean the channel won't be successful. I think the March 16th meeting was very successful. It took a while for people to get fully behind the status page, but I think for the most part we are now, and that will become an important tool in taking this project for the next level.
  • IRC is important for doing things that need to be taken care of instantaneously, like the revert war during the I-238 discussion. IRC is a Good Thing when used correctly.
  • Keep in mind that there are no leaders of the U.S. Roads WikiProject.

Ta-ta for now. -- NORTH talk 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what you said. I was working on my response the same time. I just mutlitasked and it took longer. I echo your sentiments.Feedloadr 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Highways

Can anyone tell me the point of this page other than it listing out all the Wikiprojects? It hasn't been update by a bot since November and to be honest I have never found it useful. Where does the bot pull its information? I know we have a lot more than 10 articles needing cleanup (technically only 1 of those listed under cleanup even falls under this project), etc... If someone finds it useful or thinks it can be fixed to make it useful, by all means lets keep it, but personally I think it just clutters up the project pages. --Holderca1 16:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

110% agreed. -- NORTH talk 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
As I've cleaned up project pages, I've been removing it, so no argument here. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah remove it. I don't get why it's there... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention/Highways

I placed it up for MfD. No senese in keeping it if we find it useless. --myselfalso 21:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of highways numbered 100

Is there any reason as to why the highways listed in List of highways numbered 100 are different than those listed in any of the other disambiguation pages? This diambiguation page has a table, whereas the others simply have lists. In my opinion, this page seems cleaner than the standard format of these articles, such as List of highways numbered 66, but it seems odd that only route 100 has the table. Jason Smith 08:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, must be someone trying something out. To perhaps make it even more clean, I've removed the wikitable class, leaving the table "invisible" -- look better or worse to you guys?—Scott5114↗ 09:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Since these are mainly dab pages, I consider this to be a style issue. The simple list is what is used on all dab pages and I think it is all we need here. Why add the overhead, coding and processing, to have a table when a simple list does the job? Vegaswikian 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur, how about we get all of these created, all the redirects created prior to messing around with the style. --Holderca1 18:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Fixing one is not a lot of work. Fixes many after that one is copied to other pages, is more work. If the consensus is to follow the others as the guideline, then this one should be changed. If consensus changes, it will be easy to revert the changes back to the table. Vegaswikian 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
We just 10 pages that look like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Redirects/National/000-099, not to mention that the majority of those are incomplete. I just think that this part of the dab pages is a more pressing need. --Holderca1 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Three notes from me:

  • Per a discussion on WT:USSH, redirects should not be used on dab pages.
  • The simple, unformatted bulleted list looks better IMHO.
  • We should either make the shields a uniform height or ditch the shields altogether. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone said to put redirects on the dab pages. --Holderca1 01:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
"...all the redirects created prior to messing around with the style." Unless I missed something, I don't understand what redirects this comment refers to. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I assume he means all the "Highway X" and "Route X" redirects. --Sable232 02:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly what I meant, the redirects found on the link that I included above. --Holderca1 02:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to either create shields for every route on a dab page, or just get rid of them. But I think the full name is fine. --MPD T / C 02:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, but we have some international routes that don't have shields, do we want to worry about those at the moment since it doesn't even fall under this project or just clean up the US sections? --Holderca1 10:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Good question. Since it's split up into countries, right now I'd say just US. To have shield after shield then suddenly no shield followed by shield after shield doesn't look good. So...we need to work on shielding those routes. The list of 100s, it seems to be only Texas' shields that are missing, list of 66s is missing many, but all the international routes have shields (at least). --MPD T / C 17:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I started working on that last night. I'll keep going as I have time. --Sable232 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I also know that some routes are missing from the list entirely, I will put this on my todo list. --Holderca1 22:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as I was looking through some of these, redirects do exist on some of them, for example List of highways numbered 1, the Maryland link redirects to US 1. Should we remove the MD route? --Holderca1 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly was Maryland Route 1? Was it a historical road? Was it simply co-named with US 1? Vegaswikian 19:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
U.S. Route 1 in Maryland#History...  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 19:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
So the link should be to US1 in Maryland, as it is now, however should it be to the main article or the history section? No need to reply, just change it if needed. Vegaswikian 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project page at 800x600.

Screenshot

This is what the USRD page looks like on an 800x600 display. Is there anything we can do about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiLeon (talk • contribs) 21:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

You might want to consider getting a newer/better video driver/monitor. In the prospect, no. It would look fine in 1024x768 or larger.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 21:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, yeah, may want to look at a different monitor, you can probably find a used one for pretty cheap. Heck, if you lived close by you could have this HP monitor that I have just sitting on the floor of my study. --Holderca1 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
people still use 800x600? • master_sonLets talk 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this is an issue with the browser or the template formats. Something is coded incorrectly to cause that overlap which I think is your concern. As others have pointed out, monitors are cheap. About 4 months ago I got a 19 inch wide screen Viewsonic for $150. The only problem is that now I need more memory and a faster processor! Vegaswikian 22:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"Get a better monitor" isn't a valid defense. It can happen on any resolution if you make the windows small enough, which I occasionally do when I'm working on multiple things at once. That being said, I don't think it's a problem on us, as Vegaswikian mentioned. One possible fix I can think of though (that may or may not work) is to try to force the TOC below the center template. -- NORTH talk 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That will not solve it - it will squish the main text to next to nothing in the middle. Curious - is there a really valid reason for the {{Project U.S. Roads}} templates to be on the project pages? I was under the impression they belonged on talk pages... • master_sonLets talk 00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
My monitor is 1440x900 and based on window size, you can still get the problem. Moving the TOC fixes this. Maybe there is some template coding that someone can do to fit all three items across the page and not overlap if you narrow down the size of the browser window or display resolution. Vegaswikian 00:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
here's the result in 800X600 (scrolled down to see the beginnings of the body text:
Screenshot

As you can see the body text is collapsed to nothing more than 1-2 inches across the page because of the two boxes (the {{Project U.S. Roads}} template and the TOC. Sure it fixes the overlap, but the size of both of the boxes causes a whole new problem... • master_sonLets talk 00:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps either shifting the news template down, or moving it here (to the talk page)? -- NORTH talk 01:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I watched what happened as the window was narrowed and the results are interesting. At least with the TOC moved, all of the text is readable. Either the templates need some recoding if that will address the problem or the templates need to be moved for a better solution. Vegaswikian 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not move the news template down. It is there on the top so that people do not have to scroll down, and if it is moved down, it makes the page obnoxiously long. Also, if the news template did not have a special purpose of being there, it wouldn't be there at all. Subprojects such as WP:NYSR and WP:INSR currently use this format. They have been using that format for a very long time. That is the general consensus that I have been pointing out. For nuff's sake, at least maximize your window, since I'm on 1280x1024 and it's fine. It's the same with 1024x768.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, "I have a better monitor and it's fine on mine" isn't an excuse. Try it now. I moved the TOC to the right side, with the project news immediately below that. It's a bit of an awkward layout, but it solves the issue we're discussing here. -- NORTH talk 01:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, even with a "normal" monitor and my window maximized, the stuff at the top is fine, but the to-do list further down overlaps with the bottom of the news template. (On both the original version and my current version. Grr...) Leads me to believe that there's pretty much nothing we can do on our end to solve everything; it's a browser/raw code problem. -- NORTH talk 01:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] It looks good, but the change made the table awkwardly big (might need to click go a few times). For the sake of consistency with subprojects (WP:NYSR and WP:INSR taken as an example), the TOC on the left, table in the center, and Project news on the right looked fine. And yes, you're right, it is a browser/raw code and/or video driver/monitor limitations.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the current version looks fine from a visual point of view. As page designer, one objective is to design the page so that it works on the lowest reasonable resolution that is likely to be around. On the other hand, you need to allow for features and function you can get on better monitors. The design issue becomes one of where the balance lies. If you can make it work on all screens, even if it looks like garbage on the lower resolution screens then, in my opinion, the solution is workable. Text that overlaps is simply wrong. Vegaswikian 03:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's possible to fix this, we should change it here and on the subprojects. Just because the subprojects do it that way isn't a reason to keep it that way here.
Note to Vegaswikian: watch your edit conflicts. -- NORTH talk 03:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I did not get an error when I saved. Maybe a wiki bug??? Sorry if I wiped out your comment, but it was not intentional. Vegaswikian 03:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

According to our IRC discussion:

TwinsMetsFan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#Project_page_at_800x600. - i am not changing the table on NYSR
vishwin60: yeah, neither on WP:PASH nor INSR

So, we also have users that oppose changing the tables on subprojects. That includes TMF, Rschen, and myself.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 03:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, consensus doesn't override everything. People need to be able to read the pages. -- NORTH talk 03:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. As Rschen said:
rschen7754: if people are super behind on technology thats their problew
This is the same principle with EOL for Windows 98/ME with Microsoft.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 03:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, we can't become too adaptable. We can't adapt the pages to look excellent on Lynx. Pretty much every computer that is capable of running Windows ME, XP, 2000, Vista, or Mac OS X is capable of supporting higher than 800 by 600. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (ec)
I don't see any computer out there supporting anything less than 1024X768 these days. Right now I have that resolution (the rest is covered by Trillian) and the subproject pages I can view just fine. I will say the same for the US Roads page as well - before the change Also the changes push the News template over the To-Do template, and the ToDo template is not changeable so it looks ugly irregardless. Thus I join those 'opposing' this change. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I use everything from Firefox to IE to (rarely) Safari to edit Wikipedia. Firefox shifts the to-do list to the left instead of keeping it in the center. Thus in Firefox there's a tiny bit of overlap in the new version and none in the old list. IE shifts the to-do list below the news bar. Safari has overlap in both versions. So yes, there's no clean way to resolve this. I agree with Vegaswikian – we need to eliminate the text overlap above all else.
I posted a question on the Village Pump asking what the "minimum system requirements" for Wikipedia are. I could have sworn I read 800x600 somewhere, but can't find it at the moment.
Feel free to revert my TOC-on-the-right version, as I put in my edit summary. I agree that it's probably not the best solution out there, just a solution. -- NORTH talk 04:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't replicate any of those problems with the browsers. Maybe the resolution is what is doing it, but even on my 1024*768 IE 7 laptop it looks good

Safari looks all right as well: (although it is a large screen):

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, now we're arguing over whether or not the problem exists in the first place? Of course it doesn't replicate on a larger screen... Try resizing the window so it's about half the width. -- NORTH talk 05:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Jumping in a little late, but since the vast majority of the browsing world uses 1024x768 or larger (only 12% use 800x600[5]) I wouldn't really concentrate on this too much. A good solution, if you want to keep at it, would be to allow every element to be collapsible. —Rob (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I put the TOC inside the table, and made the bulk of it hide-show.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 23:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it, thanks. Good work. --Sable232 23:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It still doesn't fix the underlying problem. --Holderca1 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Then what implication does this have?  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 00:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My question on Village Pump didn't get much feedback, although it seems they'd prefer (but not require) that we support 800x600. I personally don't care anymore, although I don't like the current version, as I'd like the TOC to be visible. -- NORTH talk 02:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I only made it this way so that a comprimise can be reached. As discussed on the IRC channel, if the current configuration can quiet this discussion down, we're all for it. Feel free to revert, as always.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


I came late to the VP, but here are my 2p. In my monobook.css I set the width of the main body column (#content) to 7in. At 96dpi that's 672 pixels wide. I run at 1600x1000px, and I would never let my browser take up that much room. Moral: you cannot safely assume that users will allow your page to be arbitrarily wide, even if they have perfectly modern equipment. CMummert · talk 17:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volusia County Road 4164 --NE2 03:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I wish that it hadn't been withdrawn. At some point we have to reach a consensus on whether county highways have the same notability that state highways do. -- NORTH talk 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It depends. Some places, county roads are really important. I don't think we have any notability guidelines on the issue, either. —Rob (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it will vary by state I think, for the most part, the county roads in Texas are not very notable, if they are even paved. :) --Holderca1 13:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
After giving it a couple seconds more thought, notability should be decided by each state wikiproject. Each state may have to go through each county on a per-county basis. I know Kane County county highways are so unimportant as to not even receive a mention in Wikipedia, whereas at least DuPage County has a list. —Rob (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, but the state projects don't have much autonomy as of late. For example, what is the difference between the Kentucky WP and the Kentucky task force, not much that I can see. --Holderca1 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This will need to be considered at a more local level. In NY, the county roads tend to be the main ones that have reasonably high traffic with only 2 lanes. But does that make them notable? Here in Nevada we have CC-215 that will be a 10 lane road, quite notable. So there can not be a blanket notability statement. Maybe a simple expansion of the guideline would work? Vegaswikian 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that a seperate article would be needed in that example, Clark County 215 should redirect (as it does) to Interstate 215 (Nevada), not have a seperate article. --Holderca1 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw no point in listing Wisconsin's county highways - I just created a blanket article to cover it. They're all essentially back roads as it is. An article about the history of the highways (as a whole) to me is suffice enough. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inkscape/GIMP USRD palette available

I have made a USRD-related color palette available on my personal website. (Commons won't let me upload it.) You can download it at http://www.denexa.com/roadgeek/usrd.gpl . This palette includes the MTF-specified map legend colors, as well as the six MUTCD colors.

To install in Inkscape, save the .gpl file to the the "palettes" subfolder in Inkscape's folder. (On Ubuntu, this is /usr/share/inkscape/palettes.) You will then be able to pick "USRD" from the list of palettes, accessed by clicking the arrow on the right side of the palette ribbon. In GIMP, save the file to the "palettes" subfolder in GIMP's folder. (On Ubuntu, /usr/share/gimp/2.0/palettes.) You can then open the palettes dialog (Ctrl+P) and double-click "USRD" to open the palette.

Let me know what you think, if you have any other colors you think I should include, and also if you find any errors. —Scott5114↗ 07:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

On Windows, this is C:\Program Files\Inkscape\share\palettes\. —Scott5114↗ 14:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
excellent work man! -- master_sonTalk - Edits 15:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Check for 404s on your pages

I just ran across Wikipedia:Dead external links. You might want to page through there and look for articles from your states. —Scott5114↗ 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few comments

First whoever had the bright idea of using the IRC to put some states over others needs to have thier head examined. I spent several days waiting for responses and caused me to lose interest in doing work in my own state road project. I do not care to be part of the full US road project since guess what I live in Michigan and dont travel outside of the state so I see no need to be part of larger group at this time. I read all of the comments and not only did they make assumtions with states they totally missed the ball on others they promoted over other states. Frankly I find this unwiki like attitude of a few over the hundreds that are working on this project. Most people that share input on the roads do not pay attention to the project pages unless thier is a new formatting change and will address the change then. Its not fair to all of a sudden say the way this state and this state was doing things is wrong and not have a discussion on it.

Another issue I am having is people put comments for clean up without doing any further explanation on the talk page. I am going to stress this now if people put clean up tags on a section put a comment on the talk page to say exactly what is wrong with the section. Just a generic tag is pointless as it will get ignored and not fixed if anything I may just delete the tag if I see nothing wrong. --Mihsfbstadium 12:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the cleanup tag, what needs attention should be mentioned on the tag itself. See the cleanup tag on Texas State Highway 74, the last line states what needs to be cleaned up. If the individual tagging the article does not mention in the tag or the talk page what needs cleaning up, by all means remove it if you don't see any glaring problems. It's not your responsiblity to figure out what the other person was thinking. --Holderca1 12:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you fully understand what is going on. Please do not make personal attacks against other users, furthermore. IRC is used to collaborate nationwide. All editors at USRD and subprojects are welcome to join. However, you are not required to join, but you will not be able to give input on some discussions. How is this an unwikilike attitude? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
As the resident anti-IRC person, I feel the need to point out that "you will not be able to give input on some discussions" is how it's an unwikilike attitude. However, the status page is the sort of behind-the-scenes collaboration that is perfect for discussion on IRC. As someone said on the talk page there, no changes are being implemented directly as a result of the status page, it's just a guide so that we can see where work needs to be done. Consensus isn't required to put up a status page; now that it's up we can discuss it and tweak the rating system and the like. -- NORTH talk 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
North I would agree with you on that but I already changed the Status of Michigan twice. Its not in need of dire help. To give an example, Indiana needs a ton more attention than Michigan does. And guess what it is not bolded at all. Thats what bothers me more than anything else. As for the IRC channel if you can find in the Wiki site that is how we are to coloberate and not on the talk pages then feel free to provide that to me. I prefer to use the talk pages since we all use diffrent work schedules. Its quite unwiki to say if you want to input you have to use IRC at a certian time and date when most of use this as a hobby and nothing more. And just an arbitury not compliant phrase for what needs work is quite stupid IMHO. The reason for the tag is that something is not compliant. So why list it twice is my feeling. I am just saying right now that I would prefer people to use the tags with info other than non compliance since its saying the same thing twice. --Mihsfbstadium 06:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about circular shields

I was looking into the Kentucky problem earlier and found something that caught my eye. If you look at Shields/Research and Shields/Database, it says that Kentucky is supposed to be using Circle sign X.svg. Now, there's of course a number of states that use circular shields, New Jersey included. New Jersey used to use Circle sign X.svg, but last year, it switched to its own set of shields, which uses an elongated circle () instead of an oval ().

So, my question is about Image:Circle sign 3di.svg, which seems to be an effort to change the "Circle signs" from an oval to an elongated circle. And the question is twofold:

  • Why?
  • Should we be replacing old 3-digit circle signs with new ones?

Okay, I lied, here's a third question: What is the point of having separate sets for all the states that use circular shields? In the case of New Jersey, in real life, some signs are ovals, some are elongated circles; some use Series C, some use Series D. Using either set, it's impossible to be 100% accurate. -- NORTH talk 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. To eliminate the state-specific circle sets. Two sets will be created: the circle set (using ovals/elongated circle/whatever) and the ellipse set (using ellipses). States can then use the one most appropriate. Mississippi and West Virginia, the only two states that use ellipses only, have already received the new shields at "Ellipse sign X.svg".
  2. If its equivalent in the generic (circle/ellipse) sets has been made, then sure.
  3. There really isn't a point, hence this conversion project. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sweet... Thanks for clarifying. Just to clarify my second question, by replacing old signs, I meant the files themselves with new ones based on your new template.
So eventually (i.e. once we update the "Circle sign" set) New Jersey should go back to using the circle set, and the state-specific sets would be sent to IfD (or the Commons equivalent)? -- NORTH talk 05:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I hate to burst your bubble, but this sign for WV 857 is pretty clearly not elliptical. I think it would probably be okay to go a step further in this project and only have one set – no opinion on which one though. -- NORTH talk 06:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the signs halfway down this page for MS 468. The fact is no one's consistent with their circular signs. There's no reason we should waste not-so-valuable server space with multiple sets of images when one will do. -- NORTH talk 06:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that we need to use the specs per state here - take Iowa for example - They use circle signs - but use the 24x24 for all signs - 2d and 3d. their font types also differ from what the generic circle sign is for all signs except 1-digit signs. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 14:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Iowa of course would be an exception and should keep their own set. But if the DOT can't follow their own specs, neither should we. -- NORTH talk 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Now you know my pain when creating some states shields, they aren't the most consistent. My favorites are the states that have specs, but when you follow the specs, the freaking number doesn't fit on the shield. Thats just when you mess around with it until you get it to fit and use real-world examples as a guide. --Holderca1 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's back this up a bit. When I said that states use a consistent set, I didn't rule out the possibility of signage errors. West Virginia's specs explicitly specify ellipses (as I've seen the sign fabrication details), making the above example an error. In any case, my claims above are heavily derived from Talk:Circular highway shield, which has a table showing what states use what (a table not made by myself, so don't chew my head off if it's wrong). As for "There's no reason we should waste not-so-valuable server space with multiple sets of images when one will do.", that's a strong argument for consolidating the New Jersey and Delaware sets, which has very few differences other than 3-digit shields with a "1" in them.

Should the rest of the circle signs be converted from ellipses to elongated circles? Yes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked into it, and I retract my previous comment. Both sets are necessary (plus a third for Iowa). Kentucky seems to pretty consistently use circles as opposed to ellipses; I'll take your word for it on Mississippi and West Virginia with the ellipses. -- NORTH talk 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but New Jersey is really inconsistent. North Jersey seems to use newer signs, and those are ellipses. South Jersey is inconsistent, using a mix of old and new signs. And from what I've seen in New Jersey, all new signs use ellipses, series D for 2dis, and series C for 3dis.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, fairly good description of the situation. When this happens, New Jersey probably would switch to the Ellipse set. -- NORTH talk 02:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, Vishwin, why did you revert the 3di template (Image:Circle sign 3di.svg)?????? -- NORTH talk 03:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Overruled an re-reverted. We're going to stick with the naming convention in this discussion since the "Circle sign" SVGs need to be fixed anyway. -- NORTH talk 04:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status?

OK, it's been a week and nothing's happened. Since my method of distinguishing circular shields from elliptical shields irked some editors (the reasons for which IMHO were extremely weak), I'm staying out of this. Whatever happens, I hope that a set of shields isn't made solely for Kentucky - we don't need four redundant sets of shields lying around. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also wondering where the status is... -- NORTH talk 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Two sets will be created:

  • "Circle sign.svg" will be ellipse shields. They will have Series D font on 2dis as well as 3dis that have a 1 in the hundreds digit. Everything else will have Series C font.
  • "Elegonated circle.svg" will be the elegonated shields. Every single shield will have Series C font.
  • Delaware will have its own set, although all of their shields are elegonated. The major difference is that all of their shields use Series D font.
  • Iowa will continue to have and maintain their own set.
  • Send all of the "Ellipse sign.svg" files, once they have been orphaned, to Commons deletion requests.

That's my current plan for now.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 14:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Why are using series D for the 2dis? West Virginia and Mississippi, the two states that will utilize the proposed circle set, both use series C for every 2di between 10 and 99. Only 1-9 utilize series D, and that's only in Mississippi. West Virginia, however, uses series C for every sign.
    • The correct spelling is "elongated".
    • Any proof of that? I've seen Delaware roads with series C.
    • No problems there, as Iowa uses a 24x24 shield for all routes.
    • That's your call, but I preferred my setup better. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iowa State Highways, List of Interstate Highways in Iowa, and List of U.S. Highways in Iowa

For some reason, these are all separate articles and I put a mergeto template on the last two, and a mergefrom template on the first. I am not sure why they were separated in the first place, but they all should clearly be in the same article. I would also personally suggest renaming it "List of numbered highways in Iowa" or something like that if it is all merged. DandyDan2007 07:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

After further looking, I found an article called List of Iowa numbered highways. Not sure why there needs to be 4 different articles. And I have no idea what the finished article should look like. DandyDan2007 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The fourth article should definitely not exist, given that the first three do. Some states have a single article, some state split them into the three articles you mentioned in your first post. Either way is fine with me. -- NORTH talk 07:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
List of Nevada state highways was a format that I believe SPUI created. It is basic and covers a lot of ground. I think this is a reasonable format to use or upgrade to a standard type of format. Vegaswikian 07:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a little too basic. The formatting's a little off, with the links bouncing back and forth between columns. SPUI created that format over a year ago and applied it to several states, many of which have moved toward something else. -- NORTH talk 07:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I am moving a couple of states away from that format to a table that gives a short description of each highway. A list of numbers is not very helpful and is more easily accomplished with categories. Texas and Florida have split theres, mainly do to the size of the article. The main article talks about the system itself with links to the highways listed out on separate pages. --Holderca1 13:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
WOW. I've never seen the other three (good thing I left it alone.) anyway - Best choice to me by far is to put the US and interstate highway lists on Iowa State Highways and rename it "List of <Iowa numbered highways>". If you feel that makes for a large article, separate the three and use a dab page (I think that's what the 4th was supposed to be) -- master_sonTalk - Edits 14:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
A dab page shouldn't be needed, just put something like this, Texas_State_Highways#See_also in the main article. --Holderca1 14:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Master son. The state highway list has a nice simple format, just expand and rename it. --Sable232 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset)Yeah whatever work best for the specific state, some states have more highways than others, Texas has over 4,000, not really practical to include all on one page. I would strongly urge to add a short, one sentence description of each one of the highways on the list though. Otherwise, you just have a glorified category. --Holderca1 15:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of me wants to say "Isn't this what categories are for"? Illinois just has List of Illinois Routes and Category:Interstate Highways in Illinois. —Rob (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So would it be best to merge everything into Iowa State Highways and rename it "List of Iowa State Highways"? I don't see how adding US and Interstate routes makes it too long. DandyDan2007 10:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say either have them all on one page, or all split and having none of the lists on the main page, not somewhere in between. --Holderca1 11:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I merged all the articles into Iowa State Highways. I was going to redirect all that into List of Iowa state highways, but there would be a lot of redirects to do. DandyDan2007 12:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine the way you have it. If you needed redirect help, anyone with AWB can do the job in no time flat. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's all done. Just need someone with AWB to fix the redirects. DandyDan2007 21:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Done - there will be a few left - all talk pages -- master_sonTalk - Edits 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few things

Here's a few things that have been on my mind for a while, split into separate sections to make discussion easier. Three topics are presented below, along with my standpoints on each. Feel free to comment on my points or voice your own in each section. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes for U.S. route bannered routes

Numerous variations of infoboxes are currently being used on articles for U.S. route bannered routes. Some are using {{Infobox U.S. Route}}; others use {{Infobox road}}. Both infoboxes, when set up correctly, perform the same function. We should use only one or the other, however, and for consistency, I propose that {{Infobox U.S. Route}} be used. My rationale is that since the browse row in the infobox is a non-issue, as these articles are not to be included in any browses per WP:USRD/INNA, the state that the route is in is a non-issue is well, making {{Infobox U.S. Route}} suitable for this purpose. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, seeing as we have (and use) {{Infobox Interstate}}. What about U.S. Route X in Y? Stick with {{Infobox road}}? —Rob (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I think per this discussion, it should be fine for people who want to use {{infobox road}} to continue to do so. For me at least, I work primarily on single state routes, and NJ uses infobox road directly, so it comes naturally to me. That being said, I have no problem if people want to convert the infobox road's to a specific infobox, provided they're doing something else at the same time, not just unnecessarily "fixing" a redirect. (Actually in this case, they're unnecessarily creating a redirect.) Basically, I think it should be the same conclusion we came to regarding the "type" in the infobox. -- NORTH talk 19:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The bigger question, then, is whether or not bannered routes should use "state=whatever state it's in" or "state=US", if using Infobox road. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, it probably doesn't matter, but I'm definitely leaning towards state=state and type=US. -- NORTH talk 22:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It does matter in this case, as "state=state" and "state=US" bring up two completely different sets of links below the infobox. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that. In that case it's probably best to just go ahead and use the U.S. Route infobox. My bad. -- NORTH talk 23:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a relatively simple way to get both sets to show? For example, if "type=US", have {{infobox road}} display the US links in addition to whatever else it's supposed to display??? -- NORTH talk 23:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes for Interstate spurs and loops

Like above, numerous infoboxes are currently being used on articles for Interstate spurs and loops, mostly {{Infobox road}}. Some time ago, {{Infobox Interstate/Business}} was made for this purpose; I reverted its usage, saying that it was excessive. We are now a few months removed from that, and I am willing to reopen discussion on its usage. However, it would make sense to use {{Infobox Interstate/Business}} only if {{Infobox U.S. Route}} is used for U.S. route bannered routes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture categories on Wikimedia Commons

Many images on Wikipedia are being migrated to the Commons on a daily basis. This is a good thing - no question. The problem is that after they get migrated, where are they categorized? One obvious place, as part of a discussion regarding {{Infobox road}}, is in a category named after itself (example: pictures of Interstate 74 go in Category:Interstate 74). But what about on a state-wide level? Category:Roads in the United States exists, containing cats for nearly every state's roads. These generic road by state cats are all we need; making cats for each state's highway system is extremely premature, at least until each state has over 200 photographs that need to be split into a new category. If there's a single state that meets that mark, I'd be shocked.

There is also Category:Road transport in the United States, containing some state-specific cats with images. These should be folded into the "Roads in X" cats and be deleted.

Of course, all of the standalone cats I mentioned (ex. Category:Interstate 74) need a collective parent somewhere. Florida has such a cat at Category:State Roads in Florida. However, I would rather see the name be Category:State highways in Florida for what I believe is the same reason most of the article cats are "X state highways" on Wikipedia: it avoids the common name mess and it provides for excellent consistency. Additionally, most of the cats on the Commons already follow the "State highways in X" convention. The parent of these cats would be the "Roads in X" cat (as is done in Florida), and Commons:Category:State highways in the United States. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So, to summarize this, the structure will be as follows:
  • Roads in the United States
    • Interstate Highways
      • Interstate 4
      • Interstate 5 (etc.)
    • U.S. Routes
      • U.S. Route 1
      • U.S. Route 2 (etc.)
    • Roads in Alaska
    • Roads in Arizona (etc.)
Correct me if I'm wrong there.
Also, I agree it would be best if the images go in Roads in x, which may contain other road-related cats, like shields, maps, and specific highways, but not a separate category like "State highways in x" unless it's really needed.
I'm guessing that Category:Road signs in the United States will be refactored and deleted then? Also, what about Category:Diagrams of road signs of the United States? —Scott5114↗ 17:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Diagrams of road signs of the United States is for all the shields as being managed by WP:USRD/S. --Holderca1 17:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, but would it be affected by this proposal in any way?
Also, I thought I'd mention this: Commons didn't approve me to use AWB to recategorize images. They'd prefer you leave a request for a bot to do it at User talk:Orgullobot/commands. —Scott5114↗ 18:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just discovered commons:Category:Photos of Interstate Highway shields as well. —Scott5114↗ 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. It shouldn't at least, the shields should be in those categories as a minimum, if they are included in others as well, I don't know. --Holderca1 18:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there's been a healthy amount of discussion since I've been here last, I'll respond to each thread separately.

  • At Scott's first post: at the top-most levels, this is correct. Upon looking at Category:Roads in New York, which I did not build, I notice a few things:
    • Interstates are included as part of the cat. On a logistics level, this makes sense (I-84 is a road in New York, after all), but does it make sense from a categorical level? Not everything in the I-84 cat is going to relate to "Roads in New York", making I-84 a false sub-cat. Now, if the category was "Interstate 84 in New York", that'd be a different story. I-495, in contrast, is fine on all levels since it is both a road in New York and relates completely to roads in New York.
    • The naming for map categories is a bit spotty. In NY, it is an overly specific "New York State Route Maps". I'd like to see this changed to "Maps of roads in New York", and the "Maps of roads in ..." standardized for every state. For states whose systems are completely or significantly mapped (like Michigan), the existing cat would become "Maps of state highways in Michigan", and be a sub-cat of "Maps of roads in Michigan".
    • To expand on the suggested hierarchy above, I'll show what I think the "Roads in New York" cat should look like:
      • Roads in New York
        • State highways in New York
          • New York State Route 2
          • New York State Route 3 (etc)
        • Maps of roads in New York
        • Roads in New York City
        • Interstates in New York (*)
          • Interstate 84
          • Interstate 495 (New York)
        • New York State Thruway
        • Streets in New York
    • *=If Interstates are to be included in the cat.
    • My reasoning for including the "extra" cats like "State highways in New York" is that a majority of states, such as NJ, TX, and FL, already have these cats. Additionally, the usage of a blanket cat to cover the state highways will reduce the clutter on the main cat page.
    • I'd leave both of the cats you mentioned alone but add "Cat:Roads in the United States" as a parent cat of "Cat:Road signs in the United States". Some of the pics in Road Signs will probably need additional categorization as well.
  • At Scott's third post: "Cat:Photos of Interstate Highway shields" should be kept, but made a child of "Cat:Road signs in the United States". As with the Road Signs cat, the pics probably need additional cats.
  • At Scott's second post: the shield cats should remain as is; however, the shield cats should be made children of the "Cat:State highways in ..." or "Cat:Roads in ...", where appropriate. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of old shields on current routes...

See U.S. Route 29 - specifically, the U.S. 170 shield on that page. U.S. 170 no longer exists.

I've thought about it, and have come to the conclusion that I'm not a fan. Depending on the age of the road that got replaced, there's no proof that the route was ever signed in that manner. We should just leave the primary shields on the page. —Rob (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this opens up a whole can of worms...I don't have the time to get into it now (I have class), but I'll be back in a few hours. I need a haircut, too. All beside the point. I have stuff to say, but I need to go. --MPD T / C 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that if the road was decommissioned or redesignated prior to the use of a particular shield design, then we shouldn't include the new shield on the page. It doesn't make sense to do so. That particular shield never appeared along side the roadway. --Holderca1 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The only problem I have with US 170 shield is that, from that era, the shield looked different than today. If it was an old shield, I'd be okay with that. Best example is that the PA shields were a different design in the 1920s. --myselfalso 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I think they're fine if they're included in a browse row (as the route identifier in the green box), but otherwise they should be removed. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
<edit conflict>If there are historical sources, old maps, books, newspapers, and magazines as examples, then we should include the old shield, especially on the discontinued roads. For roads still in use, it would be reasonable to have a gallery for the history of their signage. Vegaswikian 20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't be including the modern shields if they were never used. However if we can get someone to make a version of the older style shield then I think it would be acceptable to include it. That said, does anyone know the exact year they switched to the newer shield (Florida and California excepted). I suspect some of the articles on completely discontinued routes could also benefit from having the older style shields on the pages. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where I stand on this. On one hand, it could be useful to know that (part of) the route was once US 170, but at the same time, part of the route was also US 211, US etc etc etc, and this goes for a LOT of routes (including interstates: e.g. Interstate 76). That means we'd have to add a lot of routes. I'd have to say I disagree with using the shields unless the entire route was formerly that designation (like the Interstates). That said, I'll set up my next comment below. --MPD T / C 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of place?

Also, for what it's worth, the shield hanging out in space doesn't seem right to me. But I'm not sure what else I would do with it, except maybe put a caption listing the dates the road existed. —Rob (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I almost deleted it when I added the heading which is now the target for the US 170 redirect. Vegaswikian 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is out of place. Unfortunately, this is a problem with both past and future routes; we have a shield just hanging there. As I said above, if the entire route was formerly just one designation, then I feel we could use a shield. If we did, we could look into having a parameter in the infobox for "former" or "future" designations. Why not just take a step outside the box and do something like this, and just use shields like that and put it (smaller) in the infobox below the current shield. For Interstates...well the current shields can stay I guess...but if so, we could just put "FORMER" where "INTERSTATE" is. --MPD T / C 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That would work. I've taken to bolding the former routes in the history section, if the historic route is a redirect. There's no happy solution for routes that were historic... other than to make separate articles for them and link to all of the routes they're now a part of. Still not sure how I feel about the shields at all. —Rob (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea, but I can't say I like the "former" shield idea. Especially since that shield isn't even the former US shield but the California variant. I think using the old 1950's shield and just putting it in a thumbnail w/caption should be sufficient (assuming the most of or the entire route used to have the former designation). JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historic routes table?

All right... I've tried out a "Historic routes" table on U.S. Route 29. It keeps the shield, but de-emphasizes it; it also just lists the name and the date, with the description of the historic route remaining in the text. Opinions? —Rob (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but US 29 is a bad example. I mean, many of these routes are. Because then not only do you have to list every route, but then you have to list from where the former routes existed. Otherwise, you're insinuating that the entire length of US 29 was US 170 at one point. Same with all the other historic sections of US 29. Solve one problem, another comes up. --MPD T / C 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What if we put in "NC-VA" as column 4? I'm trying to make the concept as at-a-glance as possible. —Rob (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
We can try it, why not. Although we just keep adding more templates to an already crowded article. --MPD T / C 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
U.S. 170 - 1926-1931
U.S. 170 - 1926-1931
My original preferred alternative was to drop the shields altogether - this way the shields stay, but they're given some context, as opposed to floating in space. (Another alternative is included with this post.) Its mostly a look-and-feel deal, because 5 of those shields floating in space without context doesn't seem like a good idea. —Rob (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox shields

Is anyone having difficulties with the latest SVG shields not ever loading. I'm finding this happening quite often in the California routes in particular.JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields/Design#Fixing non-rendering shields should help. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
So is the problem with the browser or the actual SVG. The page you link to isn't too clear on that point. They just say to purge the image. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's the actual SVG. What you have to do is click on the "blank" image and follow the image to the commons description page. When on that page, right-click the history tab and click (on Firefox) "Copy link location". (Not sure what the IE equivalent is anymore...) Paste the URL into your address bar, replacing "action=history" with "action=purge". Multiple page reloads may be necessary. Additionally, the shield then needs to be purged on the article page that it appears on as well. If that doesn't work, post what shields aren't displaying and I should be able to fix it. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Question: are you sure it's the latest shields that aren't rendering? New shields should have no problem, particularly if they're made in Inkscape. Old shields should be the ones that still occasionally have issues. -- NORTH talk 22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are having a problem with a particular shield, request to have it remade at WP:USRD/S/R. --Holderca1 02:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup templates nominated for deletion

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 4#Template:CleanupMNSR. I noticed the templates haven't been tagged with {{tfd}} yet, so thought the Project should become aware of this. –Pomte 02:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editors of the past

Holderca1 asked: "I wouldn't mind seeing some of our editors of the past all coming back, perhaps we can reach out to those that are still active on Wiki and see exactly why they left the project and what needs to be done to see them return."

Don't hold your breath waiting for me. I'm still working on List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota, which is far less complete than the lists of highways. Plus, the National Register of Historic Places project is more interesting, and there's never been an edit war over ambiguous names. In fact, ambiguous names are par for the course there, since a given property may have had several owners or official names over the years. Cadwallader C. Washburn, for example, called his building the Washburn "A" Mill, while the Minnesota Historical Society calls it the Mill City Museum. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We haven't had any issues with ambiguous names here since last summer. Everything has it's set name now if that's your only concern. I don't think we've had any naming disputes since last July. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to return, we will welcome you back. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
He's serious folks... we will welcome you back. Some more formally then others. ;) JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Anyone have any problems if I run a bot to convert <references /> to {{reflist}}? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I will 100% support converting to {{reflist}}. Seeing that lots of GA/FAs have this kind of a format, it could be a starting point for peer reviews and such, as well as standardizing the look of all USRD articles.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 03:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What's the point? They both do the same thing, right? --Sable232 03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
On the surface, yes. However, the template makes the font size of the references smaller (helpful when the list of refs is very long) and adds the potential to display the refs in multiple columns if needed. As Krimpet said, there's nothing lost in the conversion, so we may as well be consistent with the FA and GAs produced by this project and convert. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, there's nothing to lose from converting, and the added column formatting functionality is quite helpful for articles with lots of references. Krimpet (talk/review) 03:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem: it's a huge waste of server resources. Much easier would be changing the default output of references to be small. —METS501 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but that does not enable us to use columns, like we can in {{reflist}}. Also, every references list is different, with every one of them being of different size, so no.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
As explained at WP:PERF, the developers have stated that site performance and server load is not an issue. And in this case in particular, from the standpoint of Wikimedia's huge server farm, a few extra templates on pages would be barely a blip. Krimpet (talk/review) 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not the templates that are the problem, it's the (potentially) hundreds of thousands of articles that would need to be changed. —METS501 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, per WP:PERF:

Generally, you should not worry much about little things like templates and "server load" at a policy level. If they're expensive, we'll either fix it or restrict it at a technical level; that's our responsibility. . . .

As a technical matter, it's our responsibility to keep the system running well enough for what the sites require. In other words: it's not a policy issue. If and when we need to restrict certain things, we'll do so with technical measures. . . .

"Policy" shouldn't really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases; keeping things tuned to provide what the user base needs is our job.

– Brion Vibber (Wikimedia Foundation Chief Technical Officer, ultimate authority on Wikimedia servers and software), Village Pump, 21 Jan 06

Generally speaking, don't worry about the amount of articles to be changed. This is also the principle with AntiVandalBot and MartinBot, in which they revert millions of pages with vandalism every day.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

AVB and MartinBot don't make millions of edits per day! Usually, only one is running, and that equates to just over 2000 edits per day (at a guess). Martinp23 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stop pulling the WP:PERF thing on me. I've read it, I know it all, and I know enough to know that 100,000 edits which don't change anything is a waste of resources. Bots are different than ordinary policy with regard to technical measures. Bring it up on the talk page of the stylesheet if you want the default ref tag to be small refrences. —METS501 (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Where does the 100,000 number come from? There are less than 7,000 road articles. --Holderca1 16:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict]Exactly. Stop pulling over here and starting to become highly bureaucratical over on the USRD talk page. There is no such policy about wasting server resources, and in fact, as Krimpet pointed out, it's just a blip. Wikimedia has to handle millions of edits/uploads/blocks/deletes every second, on every Wikimedia wiki, so it's impractical to say that converting to {{reflist}} is wasting server resources. If you want to keep whining about this, you may whine to brion over on IRC or somewhere if you want to complain about server resources. This discussion was just about standardizing the look of the Highways department. This is not about changing the stylesheet so that every Wikipedia article's references are small.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 16:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If you would rather me not participate in the discussion, allow you to reach consensus, and then turn down approval for the bot, that's fine with me. But really, I'd much prefer to try and reach an acceptable agreement to everyone and then we can get the bot approved. —METS501 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There's already consensus.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Mets has stepped in here as a memeber of the Bot Approvals Group - an office on Wikipedia which approves bots (or doesn't) based on their merits and technical considerations. Mets is actually doing more than most by coming here and helping the discussion by putting across the BAG's opinion. Note that, without BAG approval, the bot will not run, so it's advisable that you all listen to Mets' valid concerns and try to work with them, rather than working around Mets and biting his head off at every corner. A bit of good faith would certainly not go amiss here. Martinp23 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems like he only came in and said that we can't do it. That in itself is not a valid concern, since he enforced it kind of gruffly, without looking at our strong consensus already present. I'm sorry, but converting to {{reflist}} is necessary, because USRD is in a state of trash, and that there are 6688 articles in USRD total. 2/3 of those articles have to be standardized, since they are a complete mess. Also about reflist, 99% of GAs/FAs use it or something similar to it. It doesn't matter how many refs there are, see DNA and (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction for examples of an article that has a gazillion refs, and another one which only has 14.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
No matter how he presented the issues, it's Mets' job to find that there is a need for, and a consensus for, the changes. The inclusion of one template most certainly won't fix the mess that USRD is apparently in, and if you're seeking standardisations, then it would surely be easier to go ofor the tried and tested method. The pint about GA/FAs is completely irrelevant, as it isn't reflsit which has had the articles promoted (and it probably has served no purpose at all in the eyes of the reviewer!). In any case, the BRFA has now been declined by another member of BAG. Martinp23 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed all the ones on WP:ILSR and used AWB to do it; it's not a problem. Some people say that it makes the references harder to read, but as long as the font size can be changed on a per-browser setting, I don't really have a problem with it. —Rob (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I plan on changing every PA route with my bot once I get that feature approved.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 16:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I support the idea of cleaning up and converting reference sections to {{reflist}} and do so myself when I edit an article. Also - Mets501 is making a mountain out of a molehill here when he worries about extra edits. If users want to do this (as long as they don't clog up the system that is) let them. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 18:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Mets' mountain is that, from the molehill of USRD doing the conversion, we could well end up with the rest of Wikipedia trying to conform by making hundreds of thousands of edits to the article space to bring their references into line. In this case, a style sheet change is far more appropriate, for obvious reasons! The tranclusion of {{reflist}} everywhere then poses another huge problem (even if only used on USRD) - re-caching in the event of a change to a template (and the devs do go mad when this happens - they took a whole wiki down at one point due to this). Also, there is the issue of the downsides of using reflist - in articles with few refs, it just makes things harder to read and work with, and is a pointless addition. Any bot would have to take account of this. Martinp23 19:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Kingboyk has gone ahead and denied the bot; his, mine, and Martinp23's objections show that I'm not the only one opposing this. —METS501 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll admit that when I replied regarding WP:PERF, I did not realize you were part of the bots committee; sorry, I trust that you guys know what you are talking about. Krimpet (talk/review) 02:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help in Washington

An editor has recently been going through and creating unwikified stubs for several state highways in Washington. (Primarily it seems the 5xx routes.) I can probably put in a bunch of work this weekend, but I'm not sure I'll be able to keep up. Thus, I'm on a recruitment drive.

Secondly, I think it's probably time for Washington to abandon it's unique browsing system and switch back to a sequential INNA order. (It originally used one up until a discussion last year on WT:WASH.) While it makes sense, it's counterintuitive to inexperienced editors who are putting the browsing on all routes, and if you look at the WSDOT route log, the routes are listed sequentially, i.e. with US 195 and US 197 in between SR 194 and SR 202, and SR 410 in between SR 409 and SR 411.

Please help, and share your thoughts. -- NORTH talk 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you identify the editor or the stubs? I'd be glad to help a bit. --Lukobe 19:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Wiki890. They're of varying degrees of quality, and generally good starting points for articles, but it seems all need at least some wikification. (Some need a great deal.)
Thanks for your help. It's the first week of class of the quarter, so I can't edit quite as much at present as I normally do. -- NORTH talk 19:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The FHWA sorts Interstates numerically: [6] Is this the best way? I don't know. But I think that whatever we decide for Washington should also apply to Interstates and U.S. Routes. --NE2 00:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think one important difference between Washington and US/Interstates is that the US/Interstate system is better defined. With the exception of I-238, every interstate follows a clear rule. In Washington, SR 121 is numbered as a spur of US 12, but it's routing has been changed so that it ends at I-5 at both ends and doesn't come within ten miles of US 12. US 97 has/had spurs numbered 13x, 15x, and 97x.
I think the "parent route" system works fine for the US and Interstates, which have no system-wide browsing. But the way the system is implemented in Washington is too confusing for the majority of editors. -- NORTH talk 19:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_U.S._Roads_cae3.html"