This is an archive of past discussions with User:O. 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.
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Active user verification
Hello, O/Roads. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. V60VTalk · VDemolitions20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
All Interstate 10 links filled
Just in case you're interested, all state-specific Interstate 10 articles have been added. The ones for Alabama, Mississippi, and New Mexico are incomplete though, and the new exit list for Arizona has deleted the templates, links and categories at the bottom of the page. ---- DanTD20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. Regarding which is longer, US 191 or US 281, would the wording 'longest continuous U.S. route' work for US 281, since there's a break in 191 at Yellowstone Park? Let me know. 25or6to412:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to request the map be updated so that Connecticut is colored turquoise. I am definitely sure Connecticut currently uses a mix of both blank and state-labelled Interstate shields. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Why 10? Are you saying you don't believe me? Why are you treating me like I'm sort of bad person? For one, check the reference you linked to in the image page. You can also check the collection here and also these: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
(edit conflict) All right, I'll update it. Just checking, since there will soon be a general criteria for inclusion—a state must have at least 10 examples of that characteristic before I (or someone else) can change the image. Please provide 10 examples for Nevada also. V60VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads20:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The see also parameter will be incorporated into the browse using "type=Interstate" and "type=US". We at WP:USRD are aware of this and it will be fixed ASAP. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Why delete my image?
Why would you consider deleting my image? I will just upload it again. I made that shield with Paint Shop Pro, and I have released all copyright. Leave it alone; I'll make use of it elsewhere. Mphamilton22:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm kind of confused here. You reverted my edit on the major junctions and refered me to WP:USRD. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania State Highways says that "any major junctions - junctions with limited-access highways, Interstates and U.S. highways - along the route should be listed [as major routes]". Since PA Route 329 and PA Route 222 are not limited access, so, the way I read it, they shouldn't be listed as "major junctions". --Memberx018:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, but you might be mistaken. PA 145 is a pretty short route, and there aren't many junctions with numbered routes, either. Shorter routes have more lenient rules in the infobox because of their shorter nature. V60VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads19:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Schuylkill Expressway article
I noticed you have listed yourself as an active maintainer of Schuylkill Expressway. I have just rewritten the article substantially and I am curious to know what you think about it and/or how it could be improved further. I'm hoping we can get this article up to GA status too!
The third issue of the WP:NJSCR newsletter celebrates the completion of infoboxes for all current state routes. Congratulations team!
Project News
All current state routes now have an infobox. Route 183 was selected to represent the project in the header as the last article to receive one.
Now that we have that done, what's left? Plenty! A to-do list has been posted on the project page, with a more detailed version at WT:NJSCR#To-do list. The simple version:
Ensure that all freeway exit lists are up to exit list guide standards.
Make sure all infoboxes have the new maint= parameter.
Make sure the straight line diagram is properly referenced in the infobox.
Add a major intersections table to each article.
Member of the Month
The member of the month is Alansohn, who had the fantastic idea for a "final run-through" and the to-do list.
Thanks for the junction list fix. I spent several hours yesterday trying to figure out what I was doing wrong (the instructions are not very clear). Again, thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cascadia (talk • contribs) 14:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
It depends on which state you're looking for. Some of the states have good and detailed data (Texas), some states have restricted or unavailable data (Illinois/NY). An OK starter set might be the National Transportation Atlas Database 2006 (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/2006/) It's good, but not great. That's mainly why there's still a backlog of maps at the MTF, because the NTAD has a few missing highways and the specific states still needed have restricted data. 25or6to411:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted your edits regarding Missouri abbreviations again. A search of the MoDOT website yields 13 results for "Route I-70", compared to over 600 for I-70. Please use common sense. -- NORTHtalk22:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree strongly, and would like to see the source Scott got those quotes from, and what context they were in. I think the search I provided above shows that MoDOT drops the "Route" far more often than not. Like I said, I think it's common sense. That being said, I don't think I've ever touched a Missouri article, so I'm not sure how much say I have (nor how much I care). If you want to re-revert me, go ahead, but I'd much prefer if it were done after wider discussion on-wiki. -- NORTHtalk00:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
After more thought, I think I may be able to shed more light on it. Scott's quotes refer to signage. It doesn't say anything about how to refer to it in normal text, for instance newspapers, encyclopedias, or MoDOT's own website. -- NORTHtalk00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Since we'd discussed this eventuality in the past, I am letting you know I am now going ahead and doing it. Since the turnover for road GA noms seems to be low (only one other one there right now), we may know sooner rather than later.
I hope, I hope ... I have good feelings about this (helps to have another article I worked hard on just make GA). Daniel Case04:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it could be an aesthetic judgement. A diagram can combine exit listings with details about number of lanes, exit types, under/overpasses, rest stops, etc. And it's more standardized than the proliferation of tables right now, which would make it easier to compare roads at a glance. It would be interesting to put a diagram against a table in a straw poll... Vagary21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to know... how is this road sufficently notable for inclusion?
If you have removed the prod - what would be your arguement for keeping the article at AfD?
The article has been tagged as lacking notability since September 2006. You removed the prod without adding sufficient information to justify removing the Notability tag. If you feel the article should be kept, could you please improve it to a point where the Notability tag is no longer applicable?
OK, so it isn't a speedy... I thought it was a speedy, two others thought it a prod was justified , and now you're telling me it's that controversial a prod that you removed the prod without an explanatory note in the edit statement or a comment on the talk page. Sorry, but "too controversial to even be' a prod" is a non-reason. "It's a widget, because it's a widget" doesn't tell anyone what a widget is. Where's the controversy? What inclusion criteria does this road meet?' If I knew that I wouldn't have asked why you removed the prod.Garrie02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The PROD process was designed and implemented to keep uncontroversial subjects off AFD, thus reducing AFD's workload to only subjects that warranted a discussion. Saying that the PROD is too controversial is not a non-reason; it's entirely on-base. Controversial issues should be taken to AFD every time. —Scott5114↗04:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that controversial issues should go to AfD. What I wanted to know was what makes this a controversial issue, because notability isn't asserted in the article and no supporting comments were included when the prod tag was removed.Garrie00:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if it seemed I was loosing my cool. I'm not. I just was not getting an actual answer to my question, just a lot of Yes Minister style responses. But now you have pointed me to somewhere an actual discussion about this particular road is happening I am much more satisfied.Garrie00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Create articles for all routes and expand existing articles.
Featured Member
The featured member of the month is Vishwin60. He has been an important member of the project for a long time and has writen the Pennsylvania Route 31 article. Thank you Vishwin, for helping out WP:PASH.
I saw you created the Penn Tpk shield and it looks great! I was wondering if you could create one for the Del Tpk cause I constantly get it removed since the one that's on WP is the "fair use" one. Could you help, please? Thanks! EaglesFanInTampa01:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Two replies, since you have inquired about two things:
Delaware Turnpike shield: if I create a vector version of it, it would still be fair use, since the design of it is complicated and original enough to fall under copyright. We still need to find out when the shield was first published though, because there is a possibility that it might be in the public domain.
SC 300 shield: I'd be happy to create the shield for you, however I am currently away from my regular computer at the moment (vacation). Once I get back there by the beginning of September, I should be able to create it.
You may have noticed some changes at WP:USRD lately. Some of them, like the cleanup templates and the stub templates, have been astounding and great. Unfortunately, others have been disturbing.
This has become evidenced by the departure of a few prominent editors at USRD, a few RFC's, and much fighting among USRD editors.
After the second RFC, many of us found the opportunity to take a step away from Wikipedia for a while--as a self-imposed wikibreak, or possibly on vacation.
The result of such introspection was that many of us were placing ourselves in a "walled garden" and on a self-imposed pedestal of authority over the roads department. Also, we were being hostile to a few users who were not agreeing with us.
In fact, IRC has been the main incarnation of this "walled garden." Decisions have been made there to conduct grudges and prejudices against a few valued USRD users with poor justification.
For this, we have come to apologize. We have come to ask your forgiveness.
In addition to this, we hope to work as one USRD team from now on and to encourage cooperation instead of the promotion of interests.
All users are welcome to collaborate on IRC, the newsletter, or anywhere else at USRD.
In the future, please feel free to approach us about any issues you may have.
Ensure that all freeway exit lists are up to exit list guide standards.
Make sure all infoboxes have the new maint= parameter.
Make sure the straight line diagram is properly referenced in the infobox.
Add a major intersections table to each article.
Member of the Month
There is no member of the month this issue.
Want to help on the next newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it transcluded next time? – It's all here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchazenia (talk • contribs) 20:40, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Image:Map of State Interstate shields.svg
FYI: It looks as though this may need to be updated, as some people have put in notes of changes (whether true or not, I don't know), but what I do know is true is Maryland and Florida should actually be labeled mixed, as some new signs in both states have the state names, while others don't. Not sure if you need a source, though; best thing I can do is get pics of the Florida roads. It's not a top-priority by any means. In fact, my first post from back in the beginning of the month is much more important to my tasks than this, but I figured I'd just give you a heads-up, esp. because of the ensuing discussion on WT:MDRD about this particular topic.
Now that you're back, you might want to familiarize yourself with the changes that took place in USRD: among other things, the project banners have been overhauled into one universal banner for all projects (with a state parameter for the proper shield and cat), cleanup templates being included as a parameter to that banner.
Also, since I see you've mass-made shields in the past, would you be willing to do the same for Kansas? There's two versions floating out there (both SVG, both with the same naming scheme): the older, smaller version with gold piping around the border, and the larger, pattern-accurate version without the border. A lot of shields are missing and a few need converting to the correct format. Thanks if you can help. —Scott5114↗17:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back! Hope your trip was beyond relaxing and enjoyable.
I'm not trying to be a pain in your rear, but since Northenglish is gone, I've gotta find someone else to help me with my shields. When you find some time, would you be able to make shields for the list I created here? Of course, one thing at a time, and these can wait until you get around to them. As soon as you get those done (along with my other ones I requested back in August...no hurry on those, either), please let me know so I can get to work turning the red links to blue. Thanks again for all your help, and if you ever need anything from me, let me know! EaglesFanInTampa15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
U.S. 50 Junctions
I'm leaving this comment in hopes to settle a little conflict. :) With all due respect, US 395 is the more major junction in Nevada rather then US 95 and US 93. Can we both agree on US 395? I would've contacted you sooner, but I'm fairly new at this. I thought I was arguing with someone else. So still trying to figure my way around with this editing stuff. No hard feelings? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm555 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup, no hard feelings. It looks like everyone agreed on US 395 on the talk page, and those kinds of pages should be used should you be in a dispute or if you may change something that could result in controversy. Sorry if I had lost my cool there, as I may have been upset about other things, but all in all, welcome to Wikipedia. —O (说 • 喝)21:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind. In a way I should thank you, as it has now changed the way I edit pages on here :). I guess you can still call me a "newbie" hehe. Mm555 (PST) 16:05, 11 September 2007
The member of the month for this edition is User:Mlaurenti. He joined in March of 2006 and has been a worker ever since. Works include starting the Garden State Parkway's exit list. Thanks for all your hard work, Mlaurenti!
I am sorry if I added something that shouldn't have been. I am somewhat new to the editing of Wiki Pages. Roads are my #1 interest and I know a lot about the roads in my area (Lehigh Valley, PA), so I try to add what I can.
Do you know if there is an official set of guidelines put out by Wikipedia for editing road pages. If there is, please send it to me.
![[1]](http://northeastroads.com/connecticut200/i-291_eb_exit_006_04.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://northeastroads.com/connecticut001/us-005_nb_app_i-291.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://northeastroads.com/connecticut200/i-291_eb_exit_005_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://northeastroads.com/connecticut095/i-095_nb_exit_003_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://northeastroads.com/connecticut095/i-095_nb_exit_071_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://northeastroads.com/connecticut095/i-095_nb_exit_074_03.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://northeastroads.com/connecticut050/i-091_nb_exit_015_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://northeastroads.com/connecticut050/i-091_nb_exit_017_03.jpg){kind=link}