From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1

About archives

Discussion related to the creation of new subprojects and the efficiency and activity level of existing subprojects. Based on the below discussion, existing subprojects may be demoted to task forces of WP:USRD, and task forces may be promoted to subprojects.

Contents 1 New subprojects 1.1 Reinstation of NY County Routes 1.2 Territorial 1.3 Michigan County-Designated Highways 2 Demotion of subprojects 3 Promotion of task forces 3.1 Utah (again) 4 Other discussion

[edit] New subprojects

[edit] Reinstation of NY County Routes

Probably should've waited till after ArbCom for this, but we do have a number of editors interesed in NY county routes, including me. I have a really gut feeling that the amount of CR articles may go up again. I do wish to bring back the project as a task force instead, because a full-fledged project is not needed at this date in time. This came more out of gut feeling and am proposing the reinstation as a precaution. It'll have the benefits of lower NY wikiwork and creating less of a burden on the project. Also, the notability guidelines would be stricter on roads, limiting it to certain ones. If you need more information or a list of interested users, just say so. Voice your opinion, please.^Mitch32^contribs 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it sounds like a great idea, and I would certainly join up and help out with it. Juliancolton Talk 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiWork would remain the same as the CRs would still fall under New York road transport. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake. ^Mitch32^contribs 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support but with several conditions. I am supporting this only with the intent of providing a centralized location for discussion for improving the existing series of county route list articles and not for the creation of more articles. If the reinstation of this project as a task force leads to an increase in either standalone non-notable county route articles or result in the creation of more county route list articles while ignoring the horrible already existing ones, I would suggest that this venture be terminated (as my opinion on this would then be oppose). – TMF 03:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Territorial

I'm proposing a task force for all highways that aren't part of a U.S. state; namely, this task force would allow a place to put resources for D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, Johnson Atoll, American Samoa, and so forth. The reason for a combined task force is because each of these localities (except Puerto Rico) only has a few highways to begin with and so it would be inefficient to give each a task force. If Puerto Rico gains more editors in the future, they could found their own task force/subproject as needed, since Puerto Rico has a sufficient number of highways for an individual subproject to maintain.

Also, if anyone can come up with a good name that encompasses all of these (most are territories, but D.C. is a district and Puerto Rico is a commonwealth), please suggest it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically, Puerto Rico is a territory as well, a commonwealth is just a type of territory. There really isn't going to be a name that would encompass them all to include D.C. since D.C. is fully part of the U.S., while the others aren't. I suppose the best you could do is U.S Roads not located in a state. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We are missing Northern Mariana Islands which has highways as well. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew I was forgetting one. :P Well, let's just call it "Territorial" then, even though it includes D.C., because "Task Force for Roads Not Located In A State" is pretty unwieldy, and we don't need to be all exact about it anyway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's my $0.02. I support the idea of a combined TF for the territories (and district). I'm partial to the idea of a possible Pacific/Caribbean east/west split if in the future (or now) it's decided that there's enough articles/interest in one area to maintain that separately. The other split possibility is PR/everything else since PR does have interstates assigned on paper. They don't have to split now, but in the future, it might be desirable. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to lump DC in with the rest - it's a city with freeways and canceled freeways, and doesn't have the issue that Puerto Rico does where you have to know Spanish to find good sources. --NE2 09:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have enough articles to warrant a taskforce. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So don't give it a taskforce. Who says everything needs one? --NE2 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Then there's no place to keep resources. Why do you find some reason to oppose everything the rest of us propose? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep resources on a subpage of USRD. Why do you always find some reason to abuse the fallacy of many questions? --NE2 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan County-Designated Highways

I'd like to propose the formation of a task force under WP:MISH devoted to the county-designated highway system, and any other county roads of great notability in Michigan. As the CDHs have their numbers assigned by MDOT, there was a list formed, but some of them (C-66, H-58) are notable enough to be given separate articles. The infobox templates were created back in 2006, but at the time, I didn't have the graphics skils to create the necessary "neutered" shields for the browser in the infobox. Today I started expanding H-58 out into its own article, and over time, I'd like to do the same for others. Quite a few may stay as redirects to the master list for a while until source materials are found, but I'd like to aggregate the project together under a task force banner, similar to what's being proposed for NYCR. I'd like to see if we can make a go of a WP:MICH as a task force. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would tentatively support this if it is shown to be a subject of interest by several editors. Otherwise, perhaps a simple subpage branching off the MSHP project page would be in order. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "a simple subpage branching off the MSHP project page" – isn't that what a task force is? – TMF 03:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• You really don't need to make a proposal or ask permission for this in my opinion. This is for creating new projects, not task forces. If you need a task force to improve a subset of articles within your project, go for it. It would be invisible to the rest of USRD anyway. --Holderca1 ^talk 12:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demotion of subprojects

[edit] Promotion of task forces

[edit] Other discussion