Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Adopt-a-Highway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination: Withdrawn, MFD 24 September 2007

Contents 1 Question 2 Long, Multistate routes 3 Multiple Adoptions 4 This is not a good idea 5 Could someone sign me up for...

[edit] Question

Is anyone allowed to adopt a highway (meaning people not members of WP:USRD)? --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 18:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. As long as the non-member knows the current specs and all that fun stuff and can keep up on discussions, sure! IMHO... --MPD ^{T / C} 18:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 18:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long, Multistate routes

For articles like I-95, what if we want to split it up by states or multiple states? I mean, the main article is good, but we have what, 15 articles for each state. Maybe we need a whole new page...*thought halted*...maybe one of our current lists (O's exit list, or O's Interstate status list) can double as a place where we can put names, too. That would work for Auxiliary routes, too. Thoughts? --MPD ^{T / C} 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there's no reason why you can't adopt state detail articles. The only reason they're not on the main page is because of the age old reason "it was late and I was tired" :) —Scott5114↗ 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Adoptions

The way it appears it is set up now is that only one person can adopt an article, is it possible for multiple people to adopt the same article? --Holderca1 20:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it'd be needed. You only really need one person to keep up on specs and vandalism. Of course, you can always edit the article even if you're not the official adopter. If an article you want to adopt is already taken, perhaps it'd be worth asking the adopter if they'd be willing to transfer it to you. —Scott5114↗ 20:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Which one do you want Holderca1? master son^{T - C} 00:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh there isn't any one in particular, was just asking the question. --Holderca1 00:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Only allowing one person to adopt an article is ownership of articles. --NE2 17:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I edited the template to allow multiple users, cutting down on talk page clutter. --NE2 17:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]But there really isn't a consensus for multiple people to adopt. You can still edit, improve, and keep the article clean, but this is just to designate someone who would be the first to revert vandalism and such. In no way is this and {{maintained}} ownership of articles. Also, please stop WikiLawyering; it's driving everyone nuts and it might result in another RFC. (→O - RLY?) 17:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the last RFC didn't do anything, that's not much of a threat. You should stop requiring users to jump through hoops ("In order to officially adopt an article, you must list it first.") to add their name as a contact to the talk page. --NE2 17:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the wording of Template:Maintained assumes by default multiple users. It also doesn't have a bureaucratic process behind it, so I'm going to use it. --NE2 17:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the long ones like I-90 should probably be split and done by state. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a good idea

This is an extremely bad idea, and contrary to the goals and ideals of Wikipedia as a community project. If you care about reverting vandalism on a specific page, go ahead and stick it on your watchlist, and go ahead and revert vandalism there. There's no need for a badge proclaiming such, which strongly suggest ownership of articles. Wikipedia is a community project. Krimpet 18:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the precedents of {{maintained}}? (→O - RLY?) 18:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

{{maintained}} did have the merit of allowing people to identify users who have access to sources for verification, for example they may have access to historical records, a nearby library, etc. to verify information. Regarding this template on the other hand, anybody can revert vandalism and keep a page up to standards, and they should be doing so anyway without proudly proclaiming so on the talk page. Krimpet 18:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really, because isn't that just a reworded way of "proudly proclaiming so on the talk page" you fix things? It's exactly the same thing we did here, yet no one complains of that. I personally think if this template is considered "ownership" (even with the visible disclaimer stating otherwise), {{maintained}} is nothing more than the same thing and needs to go. How do we know that person is really an "authority" on a subject and not just a person trying to have their name on a page? I think a deletion discussion should be started on that one as well, because as you so aptly pointed out, "Wikipedia is a community project," and no one person should be considered an authority on a wiki. EaglesFanInTampa 14:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It has, twice, here and here. --Holderca1 14:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Then it needs to be brought up again; maybe people will eventually realize that it's not as useful as purported and merely an "acceptable" way of trying to take ownership of an article. Yes, I know I thought this template was a great idea, but if it's killed for certain reasons, shouldn't anything just like it be killed for the same reasons? Otherwise, that would be creating a double-standard which would be unacceptable. EaglesFanInTampa 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Then tag it for TfD. --Son 16:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Part of the reason that our template was deleted was because {{maintained}} exists. It was partly seen as redundant. You can use that template on articles you have adopted in place of the deleted template. --Holderca1 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply not going to bother putting the template in - I'm ok with this taskforce, but it seems more a waste of time now that I have thought about it. master son^{T - C} 20:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could someone sign me up for...

I-5, 8, 10, 15? (Dang limited 15 min hotel access... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Done master son^{T - C} 15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking closer, anyone interested in the eastern part of I-10? (we should probably split some of the long ones...) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

maybe specify by state? master son^{T - C} 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

B/c I only know I-10 in CA... but then some of the east coast users might not know about I-90 in WA for example... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever works 8) We could just add (CA) to I-10 by your name. master son^{T - C} 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)