Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Subprojects/Status/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Infobox Example on WP:PASH

There is an infobox example on WP:PASH. --myselfalso 17:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay... go ahead and fix it next time. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Maps for Michigan

As far as I can tell every Current Michigan Highway has a map. Stratosphere did the majority of them I believe. The only routes without a map or info boxes are the routes that no longer exist. Beyond this All articles have browse boxes at standards? I am not sure what that means. I looked at Indiana, one that says they do and it looks the same as Michigan ones unless I am missing something. Thanks for any comments you can provide me to assist in making the currections. BTW I thought there was at least 2 to 3 active michigan people. --Mihsfbstadium 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This means that every route has a browse box per WP:INNA. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Rather, per WP:USRD/INNA. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
okay let me get this straight so we can move on with the michigan road project. Every route that we have for Michigan has to have an info box even those that are decominished and no longer a state road. I just want to make sure I am reading that properly. :D --Mihsfbstadium 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
hmm I wonder if can get a response about the decominished routes. I checked the page out and didnt see anything that would be a problem. Next I looked at the talk pages and nothing popped up there either. So uhm why is Michigan listed as not passing those 3 areas? Plus the last time I checked I had seen myself, Imzadi1979, Bessert, and Stratosphere working on the Michigan Road Project plus a few others in the past month. --Mihsfbstadium 18:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Decommissioned routes use {{Infobox road}} as well, there is a parameter to place the year in which it was decommissioned. --Holderca1 19:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay I just wanted to let you know that by that defination Indiana still is not complaint in any of the areas that Michigan is not either. Indiana State Road 13 to the last road is spotty for compliance. If I understand the key properly they have thier project well in hand. To me it looks like theres is worse off than Michigan. I am not picking on Indiana because they are just south of Michigan rather they have yes on areas that Michigan has No on and Michigan has most of that info done already so I am trying to get the right setup here. --Mihsfbstadium 19:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If you think the listed status for Michigan is wrong, just change it. These assessments should probably be made by people active in the particular project anyway. --Polaron | Talk 19:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The assessments on the page are simply starting assessments, often done on a cursory basis. Are the assessments perfect? No. Are changes permitted? Absolutely. Moral: if you are a member of a project and something doesn't look right, don't complain, just fix it. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well thats what I did after a few of these wikipedians told me I could. The problem I have here is the method and the manner several people started this list as. Instead of actually checking out the pages they just labeled Michigan as having nothing done and needs a ton of work. Frankly I think Michigan has one of the best laid out and started road Projects. Some states that are not setup to the same degree currently is labeled as being fine. Beyond that its also how everybody was not told about this happening. If you want to get a good consesus you have to do the leg or should we say hand work and notify every state road project that a few people want to build a consensus and then discuss it then. To do this list after a lot of projects were already started and setup and then call them needing major help when others needed more was not in the best intrest of this project. Not only did it cause me to get upset with the method, but it also forced me to deal with it first instead of guess what, improving my state. So please think before you think only a percent of the workers can arbituarly come up system that affects everybody. Last time I checked we first build a consensus by discussion on Wiki then come out with the result. --Mihsfbstadium 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Your guess is as good as mine, I didn't put this thing together. I have no idea what compliant means on there, I would think that to get a yes, every article would have to be compliant, not just some. --Holderca1 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not true. On Wikipedia, you're supposed to be bold and do what needs to be done, then if someone objects (or reverts), you develop a consensus to see which version is better. And that's exactly what's going on here. Someone was bold and put up an assessment page, there are a lot of problems with it, and we're developping a consensus on what the various columns mean and how to more accurately assess the projects. -- NORTH talk 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue I have is how they went about to setup this list. They did it by having an IRC chat privately off Wiki between 6 people and just through names out there. For Michigan they just thought it was Strato working on the project and he was gone during the winter. Instead of looking at the project which they didnt do because there has been 3 to 4 of us working on the Michigan roads. Thats why I am upset with thier methods. By not broadcasting the Chat to other Wikis along with not setting up a talk page to discuss this first before making decisions. It strikes me as not building a consensus because some folks like myself try not to edit lists and what not unless directed otherwise. --Mihsfbstadium 22:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You do make some valid points. But to be honest, I don't see what the big deal is. If you only edit Michigan articles, this list probably won't affect your editing behavior. You obviously already know what needs to be done in your state, and you'll go ahead and do it. If anything, underrating your project is actually a good thing, because it will make more people come and try to help you out. -- NORTH talk 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm if you like to have work that you yourself helped to put together be called in dire need of help thats great. But myself I like to get a pat on the back once in a while and frankly that list did nothing to do that after the amount of work the folks in the project has been doing. Bessert has been doing an awesome job on checking for copyright issues along with some rewrites. I been creating Michigan related US and Interstate Highway articles plus exit lists and a multitude of other items. Others I cant seem to remember what thier names are did work before hand to setup the entire project to the current state highway form. So frankly when a small group comes in and just says it isnt good and needs a lot of work when thier is very little left to do I find it ambigous. Not to metion the above metioned method of doing it off wiki. --Mihsfbstadium 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent + edit conflict) This list shouldn't have caused any major changes to any of the projects (sans the ones that got demoted, but I can't really see any difference in those). It simply was designed to improve the projects and target where specifically improvement is needed. If it missed the mark a bit here or there than so be it, we would be kidding ourselves if we said that any of the subprojects were perfect. The list is far from being a final product, as you can see on this page, it needs tweaks here and there and needs to be better defined. It would have taken a lot of time to go through each project with a fine tooth comb and get it exactly right. If there is something incorrect, go ahead and fix it. --Holderca1 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] No offense, but there are lots of work to be done there. I commend you for fixing M-x articles, but those changes need to be compliant with the project and WP:USRD, ultimately. I did lots of fixing to WP:INSR, since their articles are a mess, and I don't get any pats on the back either. Not to mention that INSR almost got demoted to a task force.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 22:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
(tongue in cheek, mostly sarcastic, no offense meant) It's just the nature of working on US roads. We're a sadistic, masochistic bunch. The closest thing we have to a pat on the back is member of the month in a newsletter, and even that's usually not well-received. [1] -- NORTH talk 22:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You keep unbolding Michigan but one of the criteria (one of the things that is actually defined on there is if most of the articles are stubs, then it is bold. See Category:Michigan state highway stubs. --Holderca1 13:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Then every single state should be bolded. I know for a fact that most of the state routes in wiki are stubs. Caltrans has well over half of thier routes as stubs and they are one of the better looking projects IMHO. --Mihsfbstadium 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of this. You are better off if you are bolded, then you are more likely to get help from outside your project. For example, if I want to work on something, I will work on something from a bolded state before I work on something from an unbolded state. --Holderca1 15:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope I understand it perfectly. Thats why I dont think it should be bolded. "If it is in bold, it needs help badly." thats from the top of the page. Personally I do not think it BADLY needs help. Its complete, it has ever thing but history in a seperete section on about half of the routes along with intersections. But those will come in due time. Its not a major problem since the only way to get the history info is to use Bessert, which is EXTREMELY time consuming rewriting everything, and for the intersections is using earth google or yahoo maps to figure that info out. Either way those are long processes ones most people cringe at. Now take other states they need a lot more help than just that. They need routes actually created, infoboxes, and a lot of the intoductory stuff done. Me and a few others in Michigan are just doing the touching up right now, one route at a time. --Mihsfbstadium 23:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, okay, no one will work on Michigan articles. I have only looked at 3 articles adn they all looked similar to this. Maybe I just looked at the wrong articles by chance and found the few in bad shape. This isn't meant to insult you are the project, but obviously you have taken offense to it. If you think this is bad, trying taking an article to WP:FA. --Holderca1 09:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep you looked at the wrong one. That one has a key word you should see. It said 'was' a state route. That means it is no longer active and getting info for it is relatively much harder and frankly not necessary versus routes like say M-6 or M-11 or M-45 or M-231 and the like. --Mihsfbstadium 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions re: WP:NJSCR

Yeah, I'm not sure what the point of having 50 different cleanup templates is. Basically, if I put the USRD-cleanup template on the NJSCR project page, that will take care of the column?
My understanding is that this is supposed to be rating the actual projects, not the articles themselves. If NJSCR is being tagged as not ELG-compliant, certainly WP:IH must be as well. (See I-4, I-16, I-26, etc.) -- NORTH talk 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the articles in IH that even have an exit list are compliant with ELG. And no, states with projects must have a cleanup template; no exceptions.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, state WPs must have their own template, but the template can feed into the generic U.S. road cleanup category. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Scratches head, why? If it feeds back into the main category, what is the point of having a specific template? --Holderca1 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
In the event a significant number of articles are tagged for cleanup in a specific state, that state will get its own category, which will then be placed in that state's template. The reason that most of the templates currently feed into the main category is that some state-specific ones that were made initially were not populated and, thus, the cat was speedily deleted. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so for that very same reason, why create a template that will rarely, if ever be used, why not just use the USRD cleanup tag? If a large number need to be tagged in the future, than a seperate template would be needed. --Holderca1 20:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If you prefer a generic template, then that's your call... IMHO, I'd make the state template first to save any kind of additional work later on, but as long as they have some kind of USRD-related tag, it should be fine. Anything's better than the generic Wikipedia cleanup templates, which nobody really checks anyway. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Why? Especially since at present (I believe), there's not a single NJ article tagged with any sort of cleanup template.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of IH, but eh... -- NORTH talk 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, if all the exit lists aren't compliant, then the project as a whole isn't compliant. By saying that WP:IH is compliant, then you are saying that none of the exit lists need anywork. I am assuming to be compliant, you need to be 100% compliant. --Holderca1 20:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Either Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Exit_list_guide/Compliance is extremely outdated, or most interstates are not in compliance. --Holderca1 20:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not quite as bad as that page would have you believe, but it's fairly close. -- NORTH talk 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The page is not outdated - just incomplete. The reason that many listings don't match reality is that no one has checked them yet and updated the page to match. Also consider that some Interstates (I-89) are missing altogether. To summarize, the page is still in development and should not be taken as canonical, at least not yet. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

States without projects

Shouldn't some of the columns for states be assessed whether there is a subproject or not? I believe all states should have "structure compliant", "exit list compliant", "state of articles", "completion lists", "shields", and "maps" assessed regardless if they have a subproject or not. I realize this was started to assess the state of the subprojects, but since the states without a subproject have typically been neglected, it would be nice to know where it needs work. Also, for those that are non-compliant, can we get a note that links to the bottom of the page that states what exactly is wrong? --Holderca1 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree on some parts. I think that there should be some notice, some where within the subproject that the project is not compliant with what we have on this list. As for states without subprojects, I don't think it should be included in the same table. The path for this wiki is "Subprojects/Status". That, to me, suggests that this is a status check for subprojects that exists. I think it should be on a separate table. Can it be on the same page as this? Yes, but then it's an odd place to put it considering the path. --myselfalso 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well this can always be moved as well, actually just moving it up to WP:USRD/Status would resolve this issue. I would prefer to have everything in one table though. --Holderca1 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Exit list compliant?

I figured I'd start a new section header for a more general question. What exactly does the exit list compliant column mean? The discussion above seems to indicate that all (or most) of the freeways need to have exit lists compliant with the guide. But then what's the meaning between the several states that have "no standard" or "poor standard" in that column?

Are we rating the projects or the articles here? -- NORTH talk 22:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I thought we said that all states have to follow the ELG, so how can a state have no standard? --Holderca1 00:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide/States...  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 00:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I thought we agreed that it was antequated. All freeway exit lists have to follow the exit list guide. -- NORTH talk 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, that list was from when ELG was under WP:IH, besides, California is on that list but on the table it says no standard for California. --Holderca1 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think there's a lot of confusion regarding that list. I don't think it's meant to exist anymore. -- NORTH talk 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, we need to figure out what this chart is supposed to be showing. It seems to me that for some states we're rating the project, and for some we're rating the articles. -- NORTH talk 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You're doing both. Without articles, there is no project. --myselfalso 02:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, duh... but let me explain. New Jersey is being listed as "no", because it uses the ELG as its standard, but not all of its articles have been cleaned up to follow that standard. The Interstates were originally listed as "yes" because the project uses ELG as its standard, even though not all of them follow it. And then there are the states that are neither yes or no, that are just rating the standard.
So which is it? -- NORTH talk 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As the person who created this list (check the history), the column is rating the projects. The exit list on teh articles is covered in the "state of articles?" column, because an exit list is practically necessary for a B-class article. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So then IH should be changed back to "yes", as should NJ. Right? -- NORTH talk 05:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, technically they should all be yes, they are all required to follow ELG. --Holderca1 10:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, what does the maps column mean if it is rating the project? --Holderca1 10:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, New Jersey has approximately zero maps, so that's not something I can argue with. *wink* -- NORTH talk 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Texas is in the process of creating the maps for all the highways, we have them up to 67 or so. But, I wouldn't give TX a yes until all the articles have a map, but then that is rating the articles. Not sure how you rate the project on that. I suppose if a project is actively creating the maps? I don't know, I think we need a key to what all the headings mean and what needs to be done to get a "yes". --Holderca1 19:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing... :-D -- NORTH talk 19:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
An easy way to do it would be the <ref> coding, except instead of references, notes are added within the tags. Agreed, even though I've watched this table develop, I'm still puzzled at times as to what the columns actually refer to. Additionally, additional columns may be necessary, but the ref-based key should be our first priority. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a good plan. Regarding your comment two sections above, the reason we're complaining instead of just fixing it is because we don't know how. Defining what these columns actually mean would solve a lot of problems. -- NORTH talk 20:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Project Status

It is my humble opinion that this page should be looking at the state of each subproject. And to me, this status of the project should depend on major points.

  • That the project has a reasonable number of active editors
  • That the project page is in good order
  • That the project is maintaining its own articles, and trying to get their articles into compliance.

I don't know if this is stated somewhere or not. That's why I'm just putting this out there. As far as I am concerned, we should be rating projects as the whole state of the articles. If a two-thirds majority of articles aren't in ELG compliance, then the project shouldn't be considered ELG compliant. I'm just using ELG as an example; I think this should go for every category used on the Status page. I think there should be a number of columns dedicated for the project page, and sub-pages of the project. The other columns should be dedicated to the status of articles for each subproject. --myselfalso 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the table

I have made some rather major changes to the table, I moved completion lists, shields, and maps out from under the project portion. These really shouldn't be assessed wrt to the project anyway, every state needs a completion list regardless if it has a project or not. Many of those that don't have a project do have a completion list (I made several of them to aid in shield making). Shields and maps are handles by task forces that fall under WP:USRD so it doesn't really make sense for that to be judged by the projects. I added in a few notes for some of them, but I am still unclear on some of these so I will let others help out on that one. What exactly is it does "Browse coding at standards?", every state has a "Yes" in that column, so I propose we remove it from the table. Also, the column "All articles have browse boxes at standards?", most of these are blank, I assume blank means that they haven't been assessed? "WP page complete" and "Structure standard complete" need notes to provide a link to what exactly is expected. What items are needed to have a complete WP page? Will any structure work as long as the project page has one? Is there a specific one that they should be using? Okay, that's it for now.--Holderca1 16:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks for taking the initiative. -- NORTH talk 19:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
To answer one of your questions, yes, the blank "browse box" column just means they hadn't been assessed. I added three assessments (NJ-yes, OR-yes, WA-no), and changed Indiana because no, it doesn't. -- NORTH talk 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just putting this out there, but I think that the subprojects that are task forces should be noted on the table. Also, any subprojects that have no active users should automatically be demoted to task force status. --myselfalso 20:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't really see much of a difference between a subproject and a task force. Supposedly a task force has to follow everything on WP:USRD, but it seems that so do all the subprojects. We can note it on the page, but I don't really seeing how it effects anything other than the note. Go to this page, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Subprojects to propose demotion of a subproject. --Holderca1 22:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
WA does follow standards. The blank ones should be no though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A few notes, including suggestions, comments and clarifications:

  • First, some background. The first three columns of the table were derived from User:TwinsMetsFan/browse. It has become apparent that the meaning of the columns there is no longer the meaning of their equivalent columns here. The first column, "Browse coding at standards?", is now a moot point since every state browse has since been updated to use the WP:USRD/INNA specified coding, and that column can be removed. The second column was initially meant to indicate whether a state had the basic types (Interstate, US, state highway) set up for Template:Infobox road. It has now become, as it should, an indicator of whether that state uses Infobox road. However, once the Kentucky nightmare is resolved and all of the KY infoboxes have been changed to Infobox road, this column will become a moot point as well. The third column, "All articles have browse boxes at standards?" is not referring to the browsing precedence; this is referring to the actual code used to generate the browse. To get a yes in this column, all of the articles in that state must use "Interstate", "US" or "2-letter abbreviation" in the previous_type and next_type parameters per WP:USRD/INNA. This is why many states have no entry for this column. Currently, no column exists for INNA precedence compliance, so...
  • ...the "Browse coding at standards?" column should be replaced with one indicating INNA precedence compliance.
  • The next three (Completion lists-Maps) seem self-explanatory now that the footnotes have been added.
  • The subprojects section:
    • "WP page complete?" basically means how does it look in comparison to the USRD page. If it is comparable in content, it is deemed complete. Does it have to be a carbon copy? No.
    • "Structure standard compliant?" refers to the structure of the project in comparison to USRD. Again, it need not be a carbon copy as long as all of the information detailed by the USRD structure is covered in some shape or form by the project structure.
    • "Exit list standard compliant?" is fairly simple - does the project use the exit list guide for its exit lists?
    • "State of articles?" is fairly simple as well. Express in terms of quality, status, etc.
    • "Cleanup?" means is there a template to tag articles needing cleanup present on the project page?
    • "# of active members?" is self-explanatory. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, just to make sure I have it right, for browse, all states must use "Interstate", "US" or "2-letter abbreviation" rather than other possibilites such as "I", "state", etc... for type; for exit lists, is it referring to what is on the subproject page? If a link to WP:USRD/ELG is created does that fix that problem? --Holderca1 09:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Both correct. For the link, it can be something as simple as "for exit lists, use the exit list guide". --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Time out here guys! what's the differences between the first column (no not the state name) and the third? -- master_sonTalk - Edits 11:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The first is INNA precedence compliance, i.e. SR 9 -> I-10 -> SR 10 -> US 11 -> SR 11 -> SR 12, the third, from what I got from TMF's post above is that in the browse type section, "Interstate", "US" or "2-letter abbreviation" are the parameters used. --Holderca1 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, then lets take Michigan - most of the browse params use "M" for the state highway - you would say Column 3 be "No" for Michigan? (btw - I don't know how the hierarchy is handled yet) -- master_sonTalk - Edits 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That's what I am assuming, but I am not for sure. If you look at the list of templates on a Michigan highway, using just an "M" hits a redirect pointed at "MI". --Holderca1 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct, Michigan would be "no" for column 3. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
changed -- master_sonTalk - Edits 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that to make Michigan meet standards, someone needs to go through the articles and change "previous_type=M" to "previous_type=MI"? Please don't; this is the kind of "make-work" edit that has no benefit to anyone. --NE2 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I will have to agree, for well established states, I think we are okay to leave as is, for states with no or few articles or no or few infoboxes, we can use the 2-letter abbreviation. --Holderca1 15:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No one's forcing anyone that doesn't want to do it to change them - ideally, this is a task left for someone with AWB anyway. To change each one manually would be absurd (a point on which I think we agree). --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) - FYI - I'm one of those with AWB and it took me only 20 minutes to get WI, IA and IL (given IL had it programmed into the infobox for state routes) done. - and WI alone had 200+ articles. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is something that should not be done, even automatically: "Avoid making insignificant minor edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." --NE2 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with NE2 on multiple counts. First, the edits are totally unnecessary, this is precisely why we left the redirects in place from the old code. If someone from outside the state WP wants to help work on the browsing, they can do it with the standard (postal abbreviation) code. But people who've been working on the state WP for long before INNA came along, can continue to use the code they've been using for about a year.
The INNA standards are great where problems exist, but there's no need to fix a problem that isn't broken. -- NORTH talk 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
How's this for a compromise - the browse code can be changed when another edit is made to the article. States using the redirects must still display "no" in the table, however. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I just don't see the point. The first column is the one we should be worried about (and that's what I had thought this column meant). It shouldn't make the tiniest bit of difference whether I use |type=NJ or |type=, and it's a waste of everyone's time to mark it here as something that needs to be fixed. -- NORTH talk 16:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with North here. As long as the redirects work then it shouldn't really matter. At the very least, this shouldn't be used as a gauge for determining whether a project badly needs help or not. As North mentioned, this is exactly analogous to saying that links using redirects should be changed to direct links even if the displayed link is not changed. The important thing is how the browse box displays, not necessarily the exact details of the code used to create the browse box. --Polaron | Talk 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You know something, what's wrong with the redirects? (its not like we have 10 billion of them already) -- master_sonTalk - Edits 17:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the reasoning behind changing it, so every state uses the same thing or avoid redirects or both? We shouldn't worry about redirects, see link above by North and here. --Holderca1 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The first point (same code for all states). Changing all of them to the standard would discourage redirects from being used on future, unwritten routes and eases the burden on out-of-state editors.
Personally, if I do work on an article that uses a redirect for a type, I will change the type to the standard. Whether anyone else does it, I could care less. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay whats the deal with Michigan not being Yes on either the 1st or 3rd Collum. They were before the table was revamped and now they are not. Last time I checked Michigan was. Can you please explain this one to me as the previous posts did not make sence to me. --Mihsfbstadium 20:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the first column should be yes for Michigan. All the articles as far as I can tell have at least browsing in the correct order. The third column is a no because it uses M instead of MI for the "type", but as I said, I don't think that matters. -- NORTH talk 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The first column completely changed, every state had a "yes" for the previous criteria so it was not needed and was changed to a new criteria. If a state is blank for that column (as Michigan is), it just means that it hasn't been assessed to see if it passes or fails, if you know a state is a yes or no, simply fill it in. --Holderca1 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent, reply to TMF) There's no burden on out-of-state editors, that's the beauty of the redirects. If an out-of-state editor needs to add browsing to a new article, and they're unfamiliar with the pre-existing code for the state WikiProject, then there's no problem, because they can just use the default code. However, forcing existing articles to change to the default code imposes a burden on everyone.

But yeah, I guess we agreed that there's no forcing anymore; if you want to change it, go ahead. But I think we should remove that column from the table. -- NORTH talk 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)