The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was project created. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of activity in Tennessee lately. Even though we are currently discouraging creation of new subprojects, I think Tennessee could use one. They have 2 (maybe more) editors, and could use a page of their own to come up with standards and discussion, and join in with the rest of USRD. Please post below if you're willing to sign up for this project, or if you're opposed to the creation of WP:TNSR for whatever reason. —Scott5114↗ 08:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's enough editors that will consistently contribute there, then it sounds good to me. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 08:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a subproject would be a good idea....I'll sign up for it. Pepper6181 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think one should be organized...contact those who are invovled with TN road articles. --Son (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I found your note on my talk page. I have recently added two road articles, and to be honest, those two are probably going to be the last road articles, I wrote them to eliminate red links in other articles that bothered me. This to look at my future activity regarding roads. However, I think it is a good idea to start the project. doxTxob \ ^talk 22:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was project created.^Mitch32^contribs 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing to create an Auto Trails task force. Auto trails fall neither under state WPs nor anything else we have under USRD/HWY. Also, most state WPs don't have the resources to work on articles of state maintained roads and Auto Trails. --Son (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. State subprojects have neither the resources nor capacity to deal with auto trails. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• You could say that state subprojects don't have the resources to work on U.S. Routes or Interstates either, but they handle those fine. I have actually been thinking about an auto trails task force for a while; it seems like a good idea to get all the information together in one place. I'm worried that it will be rather dead though. --NE2 20:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, I would certainly help; I've dug up some information on talk:auto trail, and we might want to better organize it. --NE2 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support, this sounds like a good idea to me. The Interstate/U.S. Route comparison really holds no water, as it is far, far easier to dig up information on Interstate Highways and U.S. Routes than it is on some obscure auto trail that only a handful of people know existed. Also, no one's debating whether or not Interstate Highways or U.S. Routes are covered by project scopes - in at least NY and PA (and probably everywhere else too), they are, at their core, state highways, without any kind of interpretation or extension. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Except in the few (if any?) states that didn't take over state highways until the late 1920s, auto trails were state highways too. A better comparison might be with turnpikes; turnpikes weren't, when operating, state highways, but are very relevant to the history of the state highways. --NE2 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • This is all made using an extension or interpretation of the term "state highway", whereas my comments about IH/USH are rooted in fact. You're also missing the point that it takes a die-hard roadgeek with some serious resources (which eliminates probably 90% of USRD) to do any kind of research on pre-1920s roadways. In any event, some projects have a very defined scope - NY for example is limited to the current numbered state highway system, established (for all purposes) in 1924. When tagging "for" a project, their scope must be honored. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • What are you talking about? State highways are roads maintained by the state; the state usually maintained auto trails in the later days. California's state highway system began in 1895, when it took over the Lake Tahoe Wagon Road, not in 1947, when the auto clubs stopped marking numbered routes. I'm also not tagging as part of the WikiProject; I'm tagging as a "[state] road transport article", which it certainly is. --NE2 22:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Here we go again... The category names were made for easy compatibility with the US template, regardless of scope. I believe it was you who made this mess, making the name "road transport" instead of going by project scope. What you're doing is unilaterally expanding the scope of every project because of flaws in your own code. I can already predict your response - you won't see it as a flaw. But I do, and so likely do the other projects whose scopes are well short of every minor road in the state. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Nobody said the categories have to match projects. And not every "minor road" relates to road transport; some have always been streets as part of a cityscape. --NE2 22:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Huh? The reason that the current USRD template exists was to eliminate redundancy between the state highway project templates, which were used to tag articles according to the project's scope. That was the original point of state tagging in the event that you forgot. Yes, no one said that categories have to match, but no one said anyone has to tag based on categories alone. The initial categories existed only for WikiProject assessment; it was you who expanded it, without any discussion, to be what you described above. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
              • Because it's otherwise impossible to determine what goes in each project. Wikipedia:WikiProject New York State routes#Scope would seem to exclude any route that did not exist after NYSDOT was formed in 1967, but that's obviously not the intent. If, for instance, there was an article history of Interstate 87, or history of the Adirondack Northway, that would belong in the project. So why not history of New York State Route 3, which would contain details about the route before 1924, when it was the Theodore Roosevelt International Highway? Auto trails are part of the history of current routes, just as former state route numbers are. To have a complete history, you can't stop at the point when route signs were posted; you have to include the full history. --NE2 22:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
                • Then that's an issue with the project in question, one that should be settled by the project and not by one editor. You are, of course, free to bring this issue up to each project but it is not up to one editor - not you, not me, not anyone - to decide what a project covers. If you can't tell if it is included in a project or not, then don't tag it. No one is requiring you to do so. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
                  • It's an issue with the interpretation of the scope, which is clearly intended to cover history. Why is it a problem to put auto trails in? --NE2 22:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (de-indent) Everything can be interpreted differently by everyone. It's apparent that your interpretation does not match those of others, in which case the differences should be discussed at the individual projects, like I said before. This isn't the correct venue for this. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - By all means, go for it. It would be better suited. (Its better than some of my ideas).^Mitch32^contribs 22:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Any objections to type=trails? --NE2 22:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with it, as long as it's removed from the state projects.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Adding it while keeping them in states would be useless. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Should the same be done for U.S. Highways, Interstates, and New England Routes? How about an article like Lincoln Highway in Pennsylvania (pretend it's not a redirect) or Wendover Cutoff (which was a part of the Victory Highway)? --NE2 23:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Auto trails are not U.S. Highways, Interstates, or New England Routes, nor is the converse true. So no. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        • It's an analogy: they're all multi-state types of roads. --NE2 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
          • You mean a false analogy? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
            • What's false about it? They're roads maintained by the state and named or numbered by someone else. If I were to write an article about the Lincoln Highway in California, would that not belong in the California project just as U.S. Route 48 in California does? --NE2 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
              • Auto trails were not maintained by the state. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
                • Yes, they were. The 1895 Lake Tahoe Wagon Road, the first state highway in California, was part of the Lincoln Highway. Large portions of the Lincoln Highway were taken over after the 1910 bond issue, with the final pieces in 1915 and 1919. --NE2 00:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
                  • However, auto trails are not within the scope of the project, and are clearly not intended to be. Perhaps project scopes need to be rewritten to make this distinction clearer. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
                    • They're clearly within the scope of USRD, and, since each state project is a subproject that covers that state, it would make sense to include them. They were also state highways, and thus clearly fall into the scope of state highway projects; they are mentioned in articles such as California State Route 160. Why are you opposed to including anything dealing with auto trails? --NE2 00:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
                      • Consensus has spoken, and it is clearly not with you. That is why. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
                        • Consensus, or you guys agreeing on IRC to oppose me? Consensus requires discussion between both sides; I don't understand your objection to auto trails, so that discussion has not hapened. --NE2 00:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[indent reset] The reason we oppose these falling into our categories is because it's basically noise that gets in the way of what the projects are focused on. It also adds more work on the "stubs to be fixed" pile when the state subprojects have no interest or available manpower to fix them. Same thing as with the streets subproject. I don't understand your desire to shoehorn articles into projects that don't want them. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If the state subproject has "no interest or available manpower", who does? I'm doing some work with California right now, and I can definitely help with auto trails. Sources will be the same as for early state highway history: old newspaper articles and the like. --NE2 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's California; for most of the rest of the county, probably nobody. Go ahead and help with the auto trails if that floats your boat; that's partly why we're devoting a task force to it, so that people who like them have a place to focus on them. But forcing them on states that would rather focus on making articles on present-day routes not suck seems unhelpful at the least. Remember, this is a project-space management problem, and thus we have the latitude to be subjective till the cows come home if we so desire. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about the following: articles like Lincoln Highway in California go in trails and CA, since the expertise of California editors is helpful, but the main article Lincoln Highway goes only in trails. If nobody called the trail by its name in the state, don't make an article: for instance Jefferson Davis Highway in California would probably not exist. Many that do exist will actually be redirects, like Lincoln Highway in Pennsylvania to U.S. Route 30 in Pennsylvania; the latter would be part of PA and trails. One- or two-state trails, like El Camino Real will have details that state editors can add, and should be in the state project. Does this sound reasonable? --NE2 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[indent reset] Auto trails are vastly different from state highways. Just because one auto trail is a state highway or happened to be one doesn't mean they all are. Thus, they do not fall under the purview of any **SH project, and the **SH projects were likely intended for numbered state highways only. Furthermore, placing the auto trails in with state highways is a bad idea, for different editors edit the auto trails articles since vastly differing expertise is required. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

See my comment above: the expertise for early state highway history is the same as for auto trails. I know because I've done a lot of historical work. --NE2 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support those trail articles are extremely stubby and need something to improve them. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support re above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Please help complete Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/auto trails; right now only Talk:Lincoln Highway is tagged for it, so we can make sure that everything is done as we want it. --NE2 23:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at WT:USRD related to this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads {{subst:#if:|{{{1}}}|debate}}. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was project not created. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be a good project for Montana, which needs serious creation of articles and work on exsisting ones. Juliancolton Talk 17:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A formal WikiProject is not necessary unless there are multiple dedicated editors that will work on creating and improving articles. As of now, this does not appear to be the case. --Polaron | Talk 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly work on it, but I suppose I will have to wait to see if there are any editors that are willing to do it. Juliancolton Talk 20:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Polaron, wikiprojects are to aid collaboration amongst editors, if there is only one editor, then there is nothing really to collaborate on. Also, you certainly don't need a project to create and work on articles. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived roads discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merged into Nevada task force. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagged for demotion. This shouldn't exist when Nevada state routes doesn't even have a full project. Not sure any of the roads are notable to begin with that would fall under this project. At a minimum should be merged into the Nevada state route task force, at a maximum sent to WP:MfD. --Holderca1 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. I can't decide whether MFD or the task force is the better option, as like you said, there probably aren't any CRs notable enough to deserve an article. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There's County Routes in Nevada? I know of the "one" in Vegas - but if that's the only one - This would be more of an MfD to me :? master son^{T - C} 18:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking a quick glance at a map, it appears that there are county routes in several Nevada counties, but none deserving of an article. Some aren't even paved. I say speedy merge into the NV task force. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, merge complete, not really much of anything to merge. --Holderca1 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads {{subst:#if:|{{{1}}}|debate}}. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived roads discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was that the project was folded into WP:PASH. --Son (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The scope has always been too narrow, and no additional standards (besides project tagging) have been incorporated. In addition to this, this project has been inactive for a long time. I suggest demotion to a task force of WP:PASH, redirection to WP:PASH, or deletion altogether. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As the project creator, I'm just going to go ahead and fold it into WP:PASH. --Son (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was demote to CASH task force. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This project has been largely inactive over the last year. I propose that it gets demoted to a task force under WP:CASH. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Demote. Inactive and can be adequately maintained by CASH. See reasons given for demoting HbgAR above. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Demote. Inactive and can be covered by CASH. --Son (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Demote. Also look at stubs again and see if the two categories can be merged.  — master son^{T - C} 00:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Demote. No reason for this to exist separately, even as a task force. --NE2 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that I'm waiting for Arbcom to close before carrying this out. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What does ArbCom have to do with this? --NE2 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just in case this is interpreted as a scope change for some reason. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think both "sides" are in agreement that this is non-controversial. --NE2 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I also support demotion to a task force. I just haven't had time to maintain it lately. But I would hate to see it subsumed as a fair amount of work has gone into it and several of these roads are of note. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads {{subst:#if:|{{{1}}}|debate}}. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Demote. The Oppose votes seem WP:POINTish, and even so, it's 4-2, which is probably as good as we're gonna get. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Lack of members. I can detect very little activity; what work is accomplished is done by peripheral editors. Suggest demotion to task force.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't really see the point, does making it a task force going to attract more editors or somehow automatically improve the articles? I say leave as is, doesn't make much difference where the project is located. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Making it a task force removes the illusion that there are editors. Also, WikiProjects are deleted through MFD all the time for lack of activity. By pushing it under USRD, this prevents that from happening. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't recall any of the USRD projects ever being nominated. Also, you haven't notified the project just in case someone has it watched and doesn't have this page watched. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
      • That doesn't mean it can't happen, however. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        • At any rate, I am not convinced it needs to be demoted. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Is there any benefit to leaving it as it is? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
            • What benefit is there to leave any project where it is? --Holderca1 ^talk 20:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Well, a WikiProject is supposed to have an active community of editors. Kansas does not even a single regularly active editor. Also, people who wish to edit an article may try to seek collaboration at that project, yet there's nobody home to answer.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Okay, so how would that be resolved with it being a task force? Say an editor wants to edit a Kansas article and posts something on the Kansas task force page, you still have the same problem with no one home. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • They would be directed to the USRD talk page, either through a notice on the task force talk page or through a redirect. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • Why couldn't that be done with the current project talk page? I personally think this page should be made historical as it just adds extra unneeded administrative bureaucracy that doesn't have any effect on the quality of the articles. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
                      • Just to clarify: you're opposing this because you disagree with the idea of promotions and demotions, not Kansas being demoted in particular? If so, I think it'd be more fruitful to take it to WT:USRD than to oppose this on the basis of objecting to the process. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(reset) I oppose the process and Kansas in particular. It wasn't listed properly, neither the project nor any of the contributors that list Kansas have been notified. Kansas is also a project in pretty good standing with a better quality rating than USRD and Wikipedia as a whole. It also has a featured article. --Holderca1 ^talk 01:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The featured article was written by SPUI and I, and I believe before the Kansas project existed. Having the FA is why it has a better quality rating. Tagging the page now. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Demote all projects that do nothing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral Although I would quickly say yeah - demote it, I do hear Holderca1's concerns - and also really think this is no big deal.  — master son^{T - C} 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Now that I think about it - No one on WP has nominated it for WP:MFD yet - so why demote it?  — master son^{T - C} 03:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Dormant projects should be noted as such. Agree that this is a way to keep others from deleting the project in its entiretyDavemeistermoab (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support, has no editors and no activity. The project page is fairly basic as well. Also, by making it a task force, the possibility that it gets sent to MfD for inactivity is greatly reduced. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiousity since this argument has been brought up, how would someone determine that a project is inactive? --Holderca1 ^talk 13:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The project page hasn't been edited since last November. The user who founded the project hasn't contributed since last June. Also, this shows that only 3 Kansas pages have been edited within the past 30 days, and one of those was by a bot. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived roads request for subproject promotion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the request for subproject promotion was promoted. (→zelzany - new age roads) 21:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The issues that led Kentucky to be demoted to a task force have been resolved. More active editors have been found, the infobox situation has been rectified and the project page has been fully fleshed out. That said, I believe that the project is ready to be repromoted to a subproject. Thoughts? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hats off to you, TMF, for your dedication on cleaning up the Kentucky project. However, after a quick glance through the 'related changes' from the Kentucky routes list, I don't see anyone else working on the project (aside from one edit by User:Realkyhick. Is it still basically a one-man show, or am I just missing some people? —Scott5114↗ 07:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Realkyhick has made more than one edit, that I am sure of, as he created articles for KY 90 and KY 70 in recent days. Seicer and Dale Arnett also provide the occasional edit. The "recent changes" for the KY state highway page is misleading as that page contains only the primary routes and not the entire system. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I figured I was missing something. Very well. Support the promotion of KYSH to full project status. —Scott5114↗ 18:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Support I never supported it being demoted in the first place. --Holderca1 19:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Support as long as there are editors to carry the project - do it master son^{T - C} 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads request for subproject promotion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Withdrawn. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've redone the project page, the articles are in a somewhat better state, and there is an active editor. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I know the editor that you speak of but he hasn't responded to the query on the talk page. I'd like to see him post somewhere so that I can judge his commitment to the project. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose per below; one person doesn't make a WikiProject. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just because there's an active editor doesn't mean it needs to be a standalone project. As it stands, most of USRD is in relative inactivity. Now is not the time to promote any more task forces to WikiProject. --Son (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I back up Son on his statement - and due to recent circumstances I really can't see any taskforce being promoted anymore.

• Comment - It doesn't matter to me weather the sub-project is promoted or not. I see that as a technicality. To respond to TwinsMetsFan, what do you want me to post about? Davemeistermoab (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Never mind, I changed my opinion. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.