User talk:Imzadi1979/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2



Thanks for doing the Diamond shields for the M-roads KelleyCook 15:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Michigan maps

yeah, i can fix those when I get back after the 14th. Just dont have access to my GIS software on the road. Cheers. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 02:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

done and done. thanks for the heads up. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 23:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, most likely. I'll take a look at it on Tuesday. Cheers. Stratosphere (U T) 05:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it, when I fixed M-553 and M-94 maps per your request I had to edit the data manually to include it in the state trunklines. I'll think about it, but it's probably in other maps too. Every map of the UP that has that road in it, is grey except for 553 and 94 maps. I'm just not sure if I want to invest the time in correcting it. Stratosphere (U T) 05:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

County highways

Yeah, I can do those, I think. I just need to find a comprehensive list of routes, and the counties they go through. (looks like Michigan Highways will do there.) My only question, as the nearest CDH to me is D-19 in Livingston County, is do these have hyphens or not? I seem to remember D-19 having one. —IW4UTC 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. —IW4UTC 09:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I can do that. Just get me a reference image for whichever shields you want vectored, and I can (likely) take care of it. —IW4UTC 12:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I should be less surprised. I actually think I like it better with the hyphens, but if need be, I'll redo them without. Did you ever get me a reference image of that other county sign you wanted me to vectorize? —IW4UTC 23:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Highway Naming Convention

Greetings. Please take a look at my comment here and provide input on whether or not this is a route we should pursue. Thanks! Stratosphere (U T) 04:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Browse boxes

Browsing in the infobox is intended to be limited to intrastate routes only, with interstate U.S. routes having their browses at the bottom of the page. Please read WP:USH, Template:Infobox U.S. Route, and WT:USH. Thanks. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:M-35 1932.jpg

Please direct all discussion of this image to Talk:M-35_(Michigan_highway). I am apparently not as well versed in matters of copyright law as some of the rest of those involved on here. Forgive my ignorance. The tenor of some of the comments made on here almost sent me packing from WikiPedia completely. Imzadi1979 07:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying dates in references

I don't care one way or the other, but what's the point of wikifying a date? Clicking on it links to the page for that day which has no context or relevance to the article (or any article for that matter). I guess my question is, does it do something else besides link to that page or is it just accepted practice? Stratosphere (U T) 07:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have my preference set to Day Month Year. Wikifying the dates honors that preference for dates set by the individual user. Imzadi1979 07:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, really? Cool. Guess that answers that. Keep up the good work then ;) Stratosphere (U T) 07:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Although it works best if coded like: [[October 30]], [[2006]] or [[30 October]] [[2006]]. The coding will figure out if a comma is needed to make October 30, 2006 or leave it out for 30 October 2006. Imzadi1979 07:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If I remember, I'll start doing this from now on...NO PROMISES!! ;) Stratosphere (U T) 15:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your continued contributions

I know hard work can go unnoticed on here, it happens far to often. Your work, over the past few weeks/months, on the Michigan Highway Articles has been nothing short of outstanding. We're only a few rows away from having articles for all the highways (past and present), which didn't seem likely six months ago.

On a related note, thanks for hitting up the references and migrating them to cite, that was on my list, but I'll tell you I wasn't looking forward to it ;) Anyway, this comment is just to commend you on your great work. Cheers! Stratosphere (U T) 07:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to be appreciated. I have M-1 through M-19 re-cited. I'm quitting there for the night. Maybe tomorrow evening after the day job I'll pick up some more. I'll post the info for the cite template on the main MSHP page. Imzadi1979 07:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


The junction listings have always used no has nothing to do with whether they're duplexed or not. Stratosphere (U T) 23:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

for what it's worth, the examples I provided weren't the best since I-90/80 are duplexed, but US 101 is NOT duplexed with I280 or I680. Stratosphere (U T) 23:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, in all of the pages I've edited/written, I've only used a "/" for actually multplexed routes and an "&" for merely junctioning routes. See M-28's junction listing on Newberry as one example. Since M-117 & M-123 don't duplex, they aren't properly listed with a slash. To me, the slash implies a concurrency. I-75/US 23 or US 41/M-28 implies one thing, I-96 & M-104 implies another. The difference is subtle, but precise. Imzadi1979 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Michigan Highways site, all termini listings use the ampersand to denote junction and the slash to denote duplex. Imzadi1979 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm just suggesting you think it over, if you want to change the format everyone's been using forever then propose an adjustment. My viewpoint on this is there's been an apparent consensus and established precedent regarding this subject. Every article I can find (save the one's you've made) across all the articles under the Roads Wikiproject (including all state listings, interstate and us routes) use the slash to list junctions in a given area near a city/town. The MSHP is a daughter project of the US Roads project, and all the state highway projects are children of the same. They've all used the slash. Stratosphere (U T) 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


I saw your message on NE2's talk page. I was confused when I saw M-2 removed from the browsing order on US 2, and when I saw your message, I was inspired to do a little research as to what happened, so allow me to answer on his behalf. The article was sent to AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-2 (Michigan highway)), saying that it was unreliable (albeit informed) speculation, not quite meeting the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. The admin closed the debate in favor of delete, but NE2 made an editorial decision to create a redirect in its place.

I never saw the article, so I can't say whether I agree with the deletion or not. If you disagree with it, you may consider a DRV, but it would be unlikely to succeed, given that there were no !votes to keep and 7 to delete/redirect (1 to merge). -- NORTH talk 00:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the article: [1] It should be acceptable to undelete the history: "History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page.", but I don't see the point. --NE2 00:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been watching my watchlist, never saw it get flagged for deletion, let alone deleted. I guess things move pretty fast around here and I never got to voice my opinion as the oringal author of the article! I've requested a history only undelete so that at a later date, I can recreate the article with more detail/research so it stays this time. Imzadi1979 06:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Active user verification

Hello, Imzadi1979. 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.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Infoboxes

I was not aware we needed those for the business routes but oh well. I guess I should not have looked at the retired business route. In anycase I think I will write a few of these each day and maybe, cross my fingers, we get those business routes off the to do list. I still have to look into the US and that lone Interstate route. --Mihsfbstadium 04:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a completion list on my user page similar to the one list on the main MSHP page: User:Imzadi1979/ComplistBR. Hopefully we'll get some maps drawn sometime to add to them. Imzadi1979 04:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to your list. I have one on my user page as well for just the michigan road geeks that are currently active. Of course its nearly the same that is on the Michigan Project page. Btw I hope to get cracking on your list sometime in the future here. I can not make guarentees about it since I am currently preoccupied with other items but I am hoping in the near future. --Mihsfbstadium 06:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Some questions if you can ask

I been trying to get the major road geeks aka head of the US Road Project to get me some feedback. So far they have refused to discuss anything more than once with me. I ask for clarification and I did not recieve it. In anycase the first thing is the I-196 exit list. I tried to ask what we need to do with it and I did not get any response as for what it needs. Next I tried to figure out why the Michigan project is listed as having no Infobox info, Maps, or Browse Boxes along with the fact that there is at least 2 to 3 of us on the project not 1. The funny thing is that Indiana has the same situation at least for thier decominished routes and they have all of the above except for the maps checked off. If you can ask for me I would be thrilled. --Mihsfbstadium 18:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a question for ya

I guess the top road geeks are saying that the state completion is not valid. They say we need to have pages with rediricts and what not. Here is an example California Completion List of what I am talking about. Now do you have any idea if we have that lying around already or not. If we dont they are requesting that we make one. I am currently not in the mood to deal with that since it would be just a huge project in itself. Any info you can provide me about that would be benifical to get those national road geeks off our back. Plus do you honestly think our Michigan Road project is in dire need of help --Mihsfbstadium 02:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do, odd enough it is at Talk:List of highways in Michigan/completion list. It should be moved to a more logical location similar to your California example. Imzadi1979 02:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
who cares where its listed at, at least we have it now. BTW if you plan on moving it leave a redirct so some of the links dont get messed up that are linked to it. --Mihsfbstadium 03:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

H - 58

Thank you for finishing the H - 58 article. I have not had any time to finish it.

Wrifraff101 02:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Toomey

An important letter

Dear roads editor,

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.


Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Exit lists

You should see WP:ELG. --NE2 06:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The exit list guide is a guideline that applies to all exit lists, whether or not another project claims to own the article. --NE2 06:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
unfortantly you are wrong here NE. this is a direct quote off the top of the page, However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception so if a state decides it wants color and it is not a US or Interstate road then guess what the state wins. --Mihsfbstadium 06:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
In a word: no. You need a reason to ignore it, not just a desire to "win". --NE2 06:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay maybe you didnt catch it. This is a STATE HIGHWAY not a US Interstate or US Highway. As such it follows the procedures of the State Project which just happens to be Michigan. As a result you follow that states procedures for exit lists and intersections. If for some reason you dont agree take it up to US Road and we can debate it there. But last time I checked the State Projects had ownership in how they present their articles. Thats why we have projects otherwise their would be no set presentation. As for the reason for the state projects its to provide an ability to allow minor differences in the states to be set and not be exceptions nationwide. Otherwise their would be no reason for state projects. As for some differences I can recall the debate about naming articles as the biggest one. Michigan has used the same names and did not change when the other states did change. --Mihsfbstadium 07:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Michigan's naming is fine; WP:USSH includes it. The exit list guide applies to all exit lists - whether Interstates, U.S. Highways, other state highways, or other countries' roads. --NE2 07:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Imzadi1979, apologies for using your talk page for this; I'm moving it to WT:ELG. Mihsfbstadium, please follow. --NE2 07:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Connector plate.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Connector plate.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want this deleted? It is used in about 10 articles. Could you please reply at the IFD? Thank you. MECUtalk 16:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:M-103.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:M-103.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 08:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I also listed dozens of similar old GIF shields at the IFD. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 10:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Images etc. on interstates

Thanks for the info.

Lpanelrob already wrote me, including:

Yeah, there's a link to current standards. WP:USRD/MOS. They change a lot, but not enough to merit too much concern. —Rob (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In any event, I don't care about interstates and roads, and recognize that there are people who have specialized in that. This is not one of my areas of primary interest.

Best regards.

You won't have 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Stan to kick around anymore.

Mid-Michigan and West Michigan

Dear Road warrior:

The sections on highways and roads in those two articles don't list anywhere near all the major roads. Maybe you have someone who is a specialist in those areas that can help out?

Thanks 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

M-25 in the Thumb


A controversy has come up about one of the endpoints on M-25 (Marysville or Port Huron). Any assistance you can render would be appreciated. Thanks7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

Muskegon, Michigan and Muskegon County, Michigan

I didn't know how to do County road signs. This is a new one on me. Can you help? Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

Thanks for doing Muskegon. Don't forget Muskegon County, Michigan, because that's the one that has the county signs. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan


Thanks for following me around. I run across forms of roads that I've never tried to "sign" before, and then I just wind up making it up (I always try to remember a prior example, but sometimes there hasn't been one.) 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

County Road signs

I put in F-41 Alcona County F-41.svgF-41 in Alcona County, Michigan, and a similar set up in Iosco County, Michigan. Part of what I love is that when you click the image, you get the sign. Awesome! And F-41 is actually a really important road in those parts. Now I've got a new tool in my bag o' tricks 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

I put in F-30 in Alcona County, Michigan, and I'm getting red on the link. I don't know why. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

Lodge Freeway question

Thank you for all the work you have done on the Michigan Highways articles. I came across one of your edits that I don't understand: On March 29, 2007, you added the following sentence to the Lodge Freeway article: "US 12 ran along the long from the Edsel Ford Freeway (now I-94) into downtown Detroit." I'm not sure what you meant by "along the long". Can you please clarify or correct this?Thomprod (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jackson, Michigan and Kalamazoo, Michiganand Paw Paw, Michigan

Please help with the road signs there. The state road signs didn't work, even though I put in the 'magic words.' Thanks.7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

On Paw Paw, there are some roads on the map that look kind of important. I thought maybe they were county roads, but I'm not sure.
I put them in as state roads, which was plainly unsuccessful. Are these "A=series" roads? Those would be 358, 653 and 665, based on my reading of the map.7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Stan
The roads in Paw Paw would be Van Buren County Roads. They aren't part of the County-Designated Highway program so they don't have pages. The CDH roads are special county roads in participating counties. The state assigns a single number to them that remains the same across county lines, and these numbers are part of the grid system with the letter and number used. I just removed those links from the page and cleaned up the other links. You missed a "." before the svg on a few (which I've done myself) so the Jackson graphics were easy to fix. Keep up the good work and feel free to keep asking me questions! --Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Those were very were very weird numbers in Paw Paw/Van Buren County. Because of the paucity of roads they are actually relatively important connectors. You don't think we should indicate them somehow?7&6=thirteen (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Stan
That's up to you, but ther'e just Van Buren County Roads, CR 358, etc. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


We did a bunch of importation of materials from the Northern Michigan article, but it could use and edit for this particular article. Also, I-475 and I-675 are not specific to the cities where they actually are. HELP. Thanks. Flint/Tri-Cities Corrected link. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

Thanks for making the Sheild

It's up on the exit list for U.S. Route 163 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemeistermoab (talkcontribs) 05:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif

I, Scott5114, do hereby award Imzadi1979 the Tireless Contributor's Barnstar for the huge amount of work that went into propelling the Michigan highway project into uncharted levels of quality. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

M-209 (Michigan highway)

Updated DYK query On 20 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article M-209 (Michigan highway), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Same to you.... =-) Yes I know, I promised you a review.Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments on M-102

Imzadi, You had asked me to look over M-102. Here are my observations:

  • Be consistent, you have both "8 Mile Road" and "Eight Mile Road" used in the article.
  • The article is light on sources. For the Route description I would advise to cite a road atlas. For the history section, I'd at a minimum provide a link to the US census figures cited.
  • The Urban Renewal section is interesting, but needs sources.

I would not worry about "Cultural Impact" being a level 1 heading. IMO the article structure on WP:USRD should be a guideline not a procrustean rule.Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

well done

Updated DYK query On 24 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guam Highway 1, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: M-28 GA

Upon first reading, boredom doesn't strike me as a unique quality for a road. Neither source identifies the road as "infamous" (although to be fair, both sources also qualify as reliable sources in my book, in spite of the fact MEDC doesn't say how they determined it was Michigan's most boring road either. If it's boring because it's flat and straight, I've got hundreds of miles of state roads in Illinois surrounded by corn as opposed to trees to point out. :-p If, on the other hand, it's boring because other roads are curvy, hilly, or otherwise... that might make for a good mention. "Mind-numbingly monotonous" would be a good start in the article. —Rob (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I eliminated some repetition in the section... let me know what you think. —Rob (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you regarding M-6

If you see anything you want to recommend to me about improving my techniques, please let me know. I was unaware of the guideline, so thanks for setting me straight. I highly enjoy driving Michigan highways. Their designs are some of the oldest and newest in country, with a huge variety in between. Signage in Michigan is also very consistent and readable and presents great photo opportunities. I hope my personal photos for the Michigan highways can stay! Feel free to edit the headings under the photos to your desire.

Retaildesigner (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


I replied to you on my talk page. olderwiser 12:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


I am about to reply to you on my Talk page. Mapsax (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


You may not have noticed that the note at the top of the page had changed. There's really no need to update the page constantly, especially if people are in the business of updating only their own states. Updating the entire page all at once once a week makes it slightly more accurate in the sense that it may not be quite as up-to-date, but it ensures that it will be more accurate in the sense that all the states will be equally up-to-date. If people need perfectly up-to-date numbers, they can look at the individual state pages, such as the one you just updated Michigan from.

I'm not in the business of reverting. I just think it's minorly inappropriate that the top of the page says it was last updated at such-and-such time – ph, but certain states may have been updated more recently than that. -- Kéiryn talk 00:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK for H-58 (Michigan county highway)

Updated DYK query On 10 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article H-58 (Michigan county highway), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BencherliteTalk 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Michigan I-196 business connections

I was categorizing Michigan-related templates and came across a few that you have created such as Template:Michigan I-196 business connections, Template:Michigan I-69 business connections, Template:Michigan I-75 business connections, and Template:Michigan I-96 business connections. These appear not to be in use. Were you planning on using them? If not, can they be deleted? olderwiser 13:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

they were in use but the pages that used them have all been merged together. They should go now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Leaderboard

The leaderboard was just updated on Friday, so no, they do not need to be updated again. Except for the fact that now certain states are now more up-to-date than others -- which is exactly what we're trying to avoid with having one person do it once a week. So you know, thanks for doing that again, even though I've asked you not to twice. -- Kéiryn talk 04:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

History of I-275

Thank you for cleaning up my attempt to change the History section into prose. I am relatively new at editing, but I knew I should include some links and references. You made it much better. Thomprod (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: M-35 ACR

Not a problem. We just both happened to be in bad places with our wikistress at the same time, and it turned into a bad combination. Oh well, it happens sometimes. -- Kéiryn talk 00:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA reviews and roads

Oh. I thought sources would be needed for every part of the article. In any case, we'll wait and see what the consensus is at WT:GAN. D.M.N. (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Passed NY 308

Thanks a million for the review! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the Barnstar, and your help in getting I-70 in UT to featured status.Dave (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:M-35 (Michigan highway)

Impatient much? I was working on finishing updating the banners; it just took me forever and a day cuz I couldn't remember the correct link for the ACR.  :-P

Just teasing of course. My sincerest congratulations on finally getting through the review. -- Kéiryn talk 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rush Street FAC

Please keep an open mind to the new plethora of images. Please reconsider your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you have any reply to my comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rush Street (Chicago). Are there particular images that you don't think help the reader?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The template was created last month at my request for use in Good article nomineeTrump International Hotel & Tower (Chicago), Good article nomineeJesse Jackson, Jr. and a few other articles. It is not well-known/widely-accepted. I have dozens of other photos related to this street that I would include if the article had more text. The real question is are there images that you think the reader would be better without. I understand that you might not need to see the start of Rush Street both from across the river and from down the river or that you might not need to see a diagonal intersecton from a distance and its park close up, but if there is no text squeezing is there a reason not to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess the other question is whether such images make the article higher quality.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
How do you think it looks in those other articles and at Prairie Avenue?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I just figured out how to use the Library of Congress search engines to access the Chicago Daily News image collection this month. So I just started adding things to Prairie Avenue. I do not claim that {{multiple image}} is ratified by its presence in the article. I just suddenly had a lot of photos that I thought were worthy of inclusion in the article. Note that {{triple image}} was in the article before WP:FAC2. In fact, it was one of the big differences between FAC1 and FAC2, IMO. I think most people see the value of triple image. The question is whether a fourth and fifth image add or detract from an article, especially in places where there is no other way to squeeze the extra images in. Mulitple image also has more sophisticated layout parameters that can incorporate individual image captions, plus template header and footer. I think it is better. I also view at 1680x1050. Five wide may be a problem for some readers. 1024x768 and 1280x1024 are the most common resolutions so others may see squeezing where I do not. If squeezing is not an issue, I don't see that five wide should be a problem. If Trump International Hotel & Tower (Chicago) passes GAC it will come to FAC and we will get some more opinions. I hope you saw my not on another topic below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


Also, since I have you engaged, this month the voting is sparse at my experiment WP:LOTM. Would you consider voting at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200806.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as suggestions on your article goes, I will look some more tonight or tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Lists aren't my thing, sorry. I've declined so far to comment on USRD-related FLCs since my emphasis is on prose/articles, not lists. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Washington infoboxes

Please see my admittedly brief reply at Talk:Washington State Route 531. The infobox used there is very much standard. It is used by every non-primary Washington state route article, and is simply a version of {{infobox road}} tailored to handle WA's numbering system and the law link. -- Kéiryn talk 02:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

USRD participants list

As discussed at WT:USRD, the participants list at WP:USRD is being split by state. Due to any of the following factors- your extended participation in WT:USRD discussions, your IRC participation, or your extended participation in Shields or Maps, I have guessed that you are a nationwide editor and have designated you as such in the USRD partiicpants table. This is part of the lengthy process. If this is in error, please let me know immediately. This is especially likely with this group as I have to guess whether you are a national or a state editor. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

M-35 (Michigan highway)

Yes, I took a quick look and made three small proofing changes, and I'll try to get to it more seriously this evening. Finetooth (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow, I promise. :-P -- Kéiryn (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I got half done or maybe a little more than half, but I'm getting weary. I'll resume in the morning. Finetooth (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Done with everything that I could see. I made quite a few prose-flow changes in the Henry Ford section and minor changes here and there in other places. I'm no expert on highways or on Michigan, so it's possible that I missed things involving geographical details or special highway terms. For example, I had never run into "concurrent" as a highway word before, and I was glad to see it wikilinked. "Cosigning" also stopped me, and I couldn't find anything to link to that would explain it. I attempted a clarification of my own, but you might see a better way. Good luck with the continuing FAC. I found the Henry Ford stuff to be really interesting, by the way. Finetooth (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on the FA, and thank you very much for the barnstar. I was glad to help. Finetooth (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congrats on the barnstar. However, I've reverted your addition to the Henry Ford article. One paragraph and a link to the M35 article is sufficient. six paragraphs is entirely too much. ThuranX (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The First FA Barnstar
Congrats on your first WP:Featured Article, Woot!!!Dave (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is your first you will need one of these:

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone, officially award Imzadi1979 the original barnstar for working endlessly on M-35 (Michigan highway) which promoted it to FA status. Congrats! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Rush Street

Please come assess the new image arrangement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the photo back to the infobox in a new place. Does it look O.K.? I don't know if you noticed I have been adding text to improve the text/photo ratio. Am I pushing you over the fence?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted articles in userspace

Hi, Imzadi. Regarding this edit, could you point me to the policy that states deleted content should be removed from userspace? Powers T 23:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cite map

I know, which is why I set it up that way. It follows the scheme used by most of the other Citation systems...if author and year is not available, title comes first. As far as I can recall, Cite map (originally) and Cite press release are the only ones that use publisher first. This seems highly irregular. Except for the year issue, I based the new scheme on the suggested citation format here and on various other suggested map schemes, which all seem to agree with each other. However, I melded those with the formats typically seen on-wiki...after all, we use neither strict MLA or APA formats on wiki, just a blend of everything. Now, I'm not trying to simply defend the changes, just stating my rationale for changing. Huntster (t@c) 00:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Template talk:Cite map. Huntster (t@c) 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

5/29 DYK

Updated DYK query On 30 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U.S. Route 127 in Michigan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford Pray 00:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

M-28 (Michigan highway) Copyedit

Sorry I only had the chance to do one minor copyedit, hope it was useful. Do you mind if I return and copyedit the rest of this? Just so you know, the prose is pretty good already, so well done. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you putting DAB links on all the Michigan Articles

I've noticed that you are putting {{dablink}} at the top of all the Michigan Highways articles. I don't think this is correct. A dablink is for when a user could get to a page accidentally due to typing a non-specific name.

For example ATSC redirects to ATSC Standards, but someone could have been looking for Army Training Support Center, so ATSC standards has a disclaimer at the top.

But since neither m11 nor M-11 redirects to M-11 (Michigan highway) no-one could have arrived at the M-11 highway page accidentally, therefore you don't need the hat (which is ugly, annoying and detracts from the article). -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the dab page does exist, there are other highways listed on them (in the UK, in Hungary) and it's the right thing to do. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No its not the right thing to do. Pretty much the ONLY reason you put a dablink is if a user could arrive at a page by accident. It is definitely not to mention that this page is referred to by a disambiguation page and since all the redirects to these pages either have "Michigan or MI in them", it is irrelevant that there are other highways names M-xx. Please stop this and read Wikipedia:Hatnote, WP:MOSDAB, Template:Otheruses/doc, and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems Kelley's right here. The one you should have been linked to though is WP:NAMB (which redirects to a specific section on Wikipedia:Hatnote). -- Kéiryn (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the barnstar! I'm a little busy at the moment, but I will get back to the highway article for the copyedit. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Article you might be interested in

Your friends at the Nevada Department of Transportation have published an AASHTO newsletter with several awards for innovative design (published as the Interstate 580 project won an award), as did a reconstruction of U.S. Route 131 in Michigan, check it out.... Dave (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

GA/A/FA locations image

Image:Map of USRD quality articles.svg hasn't been updated for over a month. I looked at the image's history and you seem to be the primary updater to it. Would you mind doing so if you have any spare time? If not, that's okay, I'm just purely interested on how the status of the articles are now (that, and me wanting my first GA to appear on there :D) CL — 02:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I, Casliber award Imzadi1979 with the Triple Crown Jewels for exceptional content improvements to Wikipedia. Thank you for all you do. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

USFS Road 9030

Could I possibly get a shield for USFS Road 9030? --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 14:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an example or a photo of it or a similar one? If it's the same shield design as Image:Forest Route 13.svg then I can make one, but if it's a different design, I'll have to see what I can do for you. Otherwise try making a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields/Requests to see if another editor can make one for you. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything different under the MUTCD regarding 4 digit USFS road shields, I would assume it would be 4 really narrow numbers, possibly series E letters... --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 20:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
see [2] M1-7 (page 3-8). --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 20:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason I ask is that [3] shows a four-digit marker for a forest road as a rectangular plate. I've seen these in use along M-123 in the Upper Peninsula. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Your right... I don't know. Its probably not that important, as the guide sign along I-90 doesn't have any sort of shield, that the exit list doesn't need one... --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 21:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


Hey -- it was suggested that I speak with you and let you know that I nominated M-28 for FA. Can you please pop in over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-28 (Michigan highway)? Thanks --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 08:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Arizona State Route 89A

How goes the review for Arizona State Route 89A? It has been on hold for awhile, and it looks as if your suggestions were never addressed. I think it is safe to fail it. Nikki311 21:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

jct template in Michigan

H-58 - I have no comment about Freewayguy's actions, but this now works. (I assume the issue was with the dash not being in the shield?) --NE2 04:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick request

If you're still awake, can you hop on IRC or AIM (Scott5114A is my AIM handle) and give me the scoop as to what the heck has gone on today? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


Oops. Wow, I had no idea. I assumed your project just hadn't gotten around to it. My sincerest apologies, and thanks for catching this before I had got around to reassessing all of them. Again, I'm sorry, and a definite thanks for notifying me. CL — 03:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw my concurrency edits as well, that were reverted. Next time, I'll go on WT:USRD or something and ask about something as big as this (MSHP not having any C-class by this time was definitely strange, too strange to occur without a reason). With the concurrencies, I should have read the whole article, or at least the junction list. Lesson learned - CL — 03:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The standards for assessment are the same throughout the state WikiProjects, and they have been decided on through numerous discussions on WT:USRD. -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

M-28 Copyedit

I will try, but my copy editing skills are not the best. --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 23:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well we got some good suggestions. I am sorry I was not able to get to it last night. --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm on a wikibreak. You might want to post your request at WT:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


What the heck does "BGS" stand for? --Splat5572 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So why do you oppose when I add the county shields with the county names on them, such as H-58? Splat5572 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I regularly edit CACR as my former username of User:Dabby. So as an active editor of CACR, I know that County Route J4 (California) goes through three counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin). Those three shields obviously have a distinction - a different county name. So do you think that three shields in an infobox look bad to you? --Splat5572 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, I've got many promises to keep, and I can't take on another copyedit at the moment. The only semi-formal place to go now that the LoCE has disappeared is WP:PRV, as far as I know. Finetooth (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Later in the day one big obligation has disappeared. I'll have a look at M-28. Finetooth (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. I've worked my way through about half, but I have to stop for today. I'll come back tomorrow (Sunday) and finish. Finetooth (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. It reads well. I left three further suggestions on the article's talk page. Best of luck in your pursuit of FA. Finetooth (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A sockpuppet case that you may wish to comment on

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Artisol2345 (2nd) -- KelleyCook (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for your note. Yes, the dates are in the right format now, since it's a US-related article. But a newer issue that hasn't been brought up is the removal of autoformatting from those dates, especially as the article is already quite heavily blued-out. Date autoformatting is now optional, and I've been encouraging people to make their dates plain so that we see what our readers see (plus lots of other advantages). In the end, it's up to you and your collaborators, and will have no influence on my review or declaration. I'll post my usual pre-written blurb below, which you may want to consider. Remember, it's your decision. Tony (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Map of USRD quality articles.svg

Would you please update this map to show the newer articles that have reached GA, A-Class, and FA status? If you can't, I could ask someone else. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm aware it's a short route, but you can still add more stuff to the RD, like how many lanes are on the highway? Are there any landmarks or other things pertaining to Marquette on the highway? Does the route curve at all or remain in the same direction for its entire length? Also, none of it is referenced. CL — 18:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:US 41 Peshekee Bridge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:US 41 Peshekee Bridge.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Adams Avenue Parkway at PR

Please comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review/Adams Avenue Parkway if possible. Thanks! --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 07:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:MSHP plans

Well Imzadi, if you put it that way... Utah will fight back :)

Really though, thanks for appreciating my reassessments. Without Keiryn's leaderboard, none of us would have any idea where our projects stand and our project would be stale because there would be no motivation in improving articles, right? In any event, thanks for informing me, and let's have fun in improving both our projects articles. Cheers - CL — 01:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll get right on it - CL — 04:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
One question though, shouldn't an ACR have a minimum of four support !votes to pass? I'm not sure but from all the other road ACRs, I haven't seen them closed after four. CL — 04:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see Dave's. It's closed and I updated the respective templates on BMD - CL — 04:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Washington State Route 531 at PR

Please comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review/Washington State Route 531 if possible. Thanks! ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (tĔώ) 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI moving browse box to the main infobox.

FYI, The changes Splat made to U.S. Route 491 are being discussed at WT:USH. Dave (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Congratulations :) --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 08:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on Featured articleM-28! Your hard work payed off. Any ideas about what your next FAC will be? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm planning on taking a break from FAC to concentrate on building up the lower end of MI's scale and bring more articles up to A-Class, GA and B-Class. My two pet articles from back home are featured now. My feature topic still needs an entire article written so even that is a long ways off. Thank you to both of you for your help and support on M-28. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons box

I knew I had seen it somewhere, I just couldn't remember where I had seen it. Thanks --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 05:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan)

I have posted a review of the article for GA status, but I have one question listed on the review page if you could give it a glance. Thanks --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 21:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg promoted --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 00:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

SLC city articles

Not a bad idea. Also, I have responded to all your comments on U-68's ACR. --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the links for the ACR. --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 00:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit

Thanks. If you're interested, while I have that scenic drives book from National Geographic. It speaks pretty higly of some drives in Michigan, M-123, Lakeshore drive on whitefish bay,M-119 and US31 through "Cherry Orchards Drive" and "Loop off M-109". Dave (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


I never been to Michigan, to be honest I don't know any roads there. I live in California, los Angeles-Orange County area. I thoguht Michigan marks miles for non-access routes. Because junction lists there is no exits, so we don't list every single streets. JUst curious, Have you ever been to California, I know in California they use postmiles for like LA 18 or so. As the project goes for WP:CASH we no longer use . The California do not have a postmile for non-access routes, and also from 1964 numberings,we deleted a whole bunch of route, so for decomd routes, we don't need a gray color because large streets was usually once signed as a number. For example the I-210 formerly ends at I-10/SR 57 near West Covina. In 2003 they extend the I-210 by about 210, then it ends at Fontana. Once the I-210 extension is completed, the SR 30 is gone from Base Line Road. And also, we have been eliminating some rotes alot in the 1990s too, the SR 73 in used to end at Newport Beach and take part of MacArthur Blvd, 3 miles south of Orange County Airport I think, in 1996 November Caltrans extended the highway all the way to Mission Viejo. So the SR 73 from macArthur Blvd. is gone. For noaccess, in your states, I would stay it should stay. For decoomd the gray is actually darker than it looks at exit list. I don't know how the deleted routes work in michigan. For concur, cyan color should not exist period. not even on junction list.--Freewayguy What's up?04:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been to California twice. I've been through the state between San Francisco and Anaheim. I have family near Santa Barbara. I do know that legally in California, there are no concurrencies. Michigan has many concurrencies, which are well signed. For every US 41 marker between Covington Township and Chocolay Township, there is a M-28 shield right under or next to it. The only time you'd see one without the other on that section of highway is if a snowplow knocked it off, which does happen periodically. There are very few instances in Michigan for no-access junctions on the freeways. There are many more instances of concurrency junctions in Michigan. A traveller looking to drive from Ironwood to Sault Ste. Marie would need to know that M-28 is going to follow US 41 from Covington Township to Chocolay Township/Harvey. I don't claim to assume that this driver would be looking at Wikipedia instead of a map, but if they were, knowing that M-28 is following another highway is a valid point.
My background also includes page layout and design. I was an editor at a newspaper and a yearbook. A good design visually is more than black and white. The various colors break up a boring chart visually. The usage of the cyan color on both termini visually links the two lines of the chart. The usage of the notes in the right column parses that information for color-blind or screen readers for the blind.
Michigan doesn't directly give mileposts or postmiles for our trunklines. Instead MDOT labels the lengths of control sections. Most of the control points between sections are major junctions or county lines. Using these lengths, we can compute the mile posts at each junction, out to 3 decimal places. Not all junctions are control points though, so it just depends how MDOT divided and measured a highway in each county. The other method we've used is to take measurements from Michigan's GIS data set. That method gives us mileposts for any junction, including city streets.
We don't use the grey/deleted normally. The closed and unconstructed would have limited usage in general, but the concurrency termini/cyan has lots of usage in Michigan. There's no real push by anyone else besides yourself at this time to eliminate its usage. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In California we have alooot of concurs plus few unsign routes. I-405 and SR 22 concurs around Long Beach very end of Orange County, SR 2/US 101 concurs in Hollywood to Downtown LA so does US 101/SR 170, except SR 170 is unsigned and I-5/10 concurs too as well as unsign SR 10 in East LA Interchange, and do you know US 101/SR 1 concurs again and again from coastal cities, and I-580/80 concurs around San Francisco. I did not say to eliminate cyan concur colors, I just said it shouldn't be there, because no point to. I'm just suggesting. Orange no access color is fine for other states becasue alot of other states works way differ from California highways. Their postmile seems to be measure updately while California postmile seems to measure in 1964 when they changed tons and tons of numbers around. I've try to learn as much California history as I can though, it's history is very intersting.--Freewayguy What's up? 03:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Route 41 in Michigan and Trunk Line Bridge No. 1

Hi. Great job on your article U.S. Route 41 in Michigan, which I noticed in the DYK nomination pipeline. As you noticed, i went ahead and opened a stub on Peshekee River Bridge which is itself notable, at first using an incorrect name which is incorrect in the National Register system, and cutting and pasting from your article. You beat me to fixing the article name.

Anyhow, I kept editing and I have added in a reference that should be of interest to you for the Route 41 article as well: the National Register's Multiple Property Submission (MPS) on Highway Bridges of Michigan. Like many other MPS documents, it's a very exhaustive and informative work. It's in the bridge article now as an external link from the infobox and as a proper reference from the article text, under the principal author Charlene K. Roise's name.

Please feel free to edit the bridge article further and to submit it too for DYK, as your own work, because i have only linked references and done some cutting and pasting. Actually, I think your current DYK hook should be applied to this bridge....ooh, i went to paste the DYK words here and see you've done it already! Well, not necessary to give me credit, too, but thanks. I was going to suggest you use a different hook for the highway article. Hmm, now, not sure if the bridge article has 1500 characters of length or is otherwise DYK-ready. But it can be developed. doncram (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NYSR tagging

You are removing the USRD tag from articles which are within the scope of USRD. Please stop. --NE2 19:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion that involves you

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WikiProject secession --NE2 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


Looks like it passed before I got there! Anyway, feel free to ask for reviews whenever they are needed. I'm probably not very effective at identifying comprehensiveness issues, but I can look for prose problems. --Laser brain (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


Barnstar UTSH.png The Utah State Highways Barnstar
Utah State Route 128 passed FAC, thanks for willingness to proofread this article about 300 times over.Dave (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 5 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U.S. Route 41 in Michigan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The standalone hook was accepted. The other one is still pending in its own merit. Anyway, all the best for your Good Article nomination! - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 5 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peshekee River Bridge, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Peshekee made it in the next update. Thanks for nominating. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, glad to see these both made it. I knew at least the first one would. You seemed to be duly, but perhaps overly, concerned about them all arriving in the "Expiring noms" section of the T:TDYK page. It is usually the "expiring" ones that are being really considered, and arriving there does not mean that a nomination is in trouble. It would have been nice to get resolution on these earlier of course. And, I am not sure what lesson to take from the confusion following from my split-off of an article under DYK consideration. Should i never split off something until after the first DYK is listed, to avoid the confusion that the Peshekee Bridge split-off engendered? Or maybe the split-off was okay, and the confusion only derived from Peshekee being separately nominated. Anyhow, sorry for all the confusion, glad it seems to have worked out. doncram (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I've never had any of my other nominations go all the way to the expiring section before being accepted. That's why I was concerned, since any last-minute issues could potentially mean I couldn't fix them before the nomination expired. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC exit list IP edits

Please see WT:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#IP_cleanup_help and also this page - a big problem with an IP who refuses to stop editing exit lists. Sswonk (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • 66.66 coooontinues to ignore the WP:MOS, and pay no concerns to the messages we post on his talkpage. The last warning I issued him from WP:UTM is {{uw-mos3}}. I don't want to engage with a war and I have enough on top of my plate, what is the next warning we should issue him. I know you don't enjoy reverting edits, I hate it too, it's simply a waaaste of time. We need Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) to deal with it.--I-405 (Freeway) 02:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I issued that IP level 4 {{uw-vand4}} on his talkpage, the next time I will issue him maroon column of WP:UTM van Level 4IM which is the last final warning before the block. Continous violations of WP:MOS counts as vandalisms, and cannot be tolerated. I'm warning him way enough, and I don't know much how to stop it.--I-405 (Freeway) 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Imperial triple crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon Imzadi1979 for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on M-35 (Michigan highway) - it's rare but must be satisfying to get an article all the way through WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

George Washington Memorial Bridge

I've corrected the issues with the GA review on this article. I'm not sure if I solved the problem in the design section, so I'll leave that up to your judgment. If there are any other problems that need to be resolved, please let me know. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

66 IP exit list clean-ups

Thanks for dealing with 66.66 IP's edits to numerous exit lists. He was blocked for a week for continous WP:MOS violation. You know how it's like to undo people's changes, especially when they contra with WP:ELG--57Freeways 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: a couple quick things

Alright, here goes:

  • Put MDOT in parentheses after the first mention of Michigan Department of Transportation so people know what you're talking about
  • Perhaps try putting some summaries under the "Interstate Highways" and "U.S. Highways" sections just so it's not "Main article: ..." by itself
  • Why isn't anything under the "Usage" section referenced?
  • And yeah, try getting a new map as soon as possible

I'm not the best reviewer so perhaps you'd like a second opinion but this is just what I found. Good luck - CL — 17:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


I sense that this is a bit old but... rollback is not for edit warring. You can lose your rollback privileges if you use it for edit warring. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

M-28 References

Hey, looking at M-28, references 32-40 all seem to be the same reference..., are they different year maps? If so the year isn't showing. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They are different year maps, but the {{cite map}} is broken, not showing them. The M-35 article was recently "fixed" as well, but the year=/date= parameter issue with the template is also to blame there. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


Imzadi1979/Archive 1, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for M-67 (Michigan highway)

Updated DYK query On 12 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article M-67 (Michigan highway), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Capitol Loop

Hey there. The best I could do is get you the GIS lengths for the 4 segments (these are all from the northern frontage road of I-496): MLK Jr. southbound=986.506191. MLK Jr. northbound=689.723881. Cedar=872.786044. Larch=857.579704. I'm almost positive these are in meters. Hope this helps. 25or6to4 (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Misinformed road geeks...

... and utter laymen like myself, who find it simplest to search for highways by their state and number. --Golbez (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I made all the redirs I need to; I'm just doing enough to make "MI-#" and "MI #" somehow lead to the congressional district. I figured the roads interfered with that plan. --Golbez (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I realized that after leaving that comment, that I don't need a hatnote on the highways, or redirs to them. But a lot of these MI # WERE in need of dab pages, due to the helicopters, British intelligence agencies, etc... adding a link to them and the district pages is easy. --Golbez (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK U.S. Route 151 in Iowa

I updated the refs with that of the IOWA DOT map, which when the miles are added up equals 108, or at least thats what I got. Maybe it passes now? Oh and thanks for not biting the noob, as I am still learning about how to create articles on roads. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Capitol Loop (Lansing, Michigan)

Updated DYK query On 22 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Capitol Loop (Lansing, Michigan), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for M-69 (Michigan highway)

Updated DYK query On 25 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article M-69 (Michigan highway), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions, and all the best for your GAN! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

San Diego Fwy

Imzadi, what you menat by this to phrase my comments. Rschen just chase me around undo the change for no rations. Do you think San Diego Fwy should be merge with I-405, or kept seperate page? San Diego Fwy contains whole part of I-405 all through Los Angeles-Orange County and it becomes an I-5 in Southern Orange County. I did tag San Diego Fwy for {{Merge}}, how long I have to leave the falg until I can merge it. It's tough to have paitence, I'm just intensely lack patience, and it's tough to control.--Freewayguy 22:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for M-68 (Michigan highway)

Updated DYK query On 5 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article M-68 (Michigan highway), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Ford Road

Updated DYK query On 9 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ford Road, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png An Award
For getting what appears to be your 30th GA. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

30 GAs!?!?!?!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For getting 30 GAs and many more things such as some FAs and FLs! ~~ ComputerGuy 01:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


Barnstar UTSH.png The Utah State Highways Barnstar
For beating Utah in the leaderboard, and by one-tenths of a point too! Face-grin.svg CL — 05:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

26 GAs? Wow! MSHP sure is racking them up. With the lack of activity going on over at Utah, I'm surprised the margin is so small. Keep up the good work - CL — 05:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Changes made to the Infobox road templates

Well, I'm here just putting in interwiki links to Indonesian-language Wikipedia. Sorry if I had any mistake. Thanks a lot. Farras Octara (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Georefimprove template

This was placed for other reasons, than the Google one. If you feel it's presence wasn't needed, feel free to remove it, but it won't stop the article getting tagged again in the future. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What needed improving? You can't just slap a tag someplace without explanation. Other people can't discern exactly why you feel something without comments on the talk page. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will make an ammendment to the template, which was based on ref improve Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


Hey I have a historical question for you since you have a "few" old maps. Can you tell if prior to the 1950s, probably 1930s or so, if US-41 ran along a different alignment than it does today around Calumet in the Keeweenaw? I found some signs around there that indicate it may have and was wondering if you could back that up? Thanks! Strato|sphere 00:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look for ya, sure. I'll let you know if I find something. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-Interstate CfD

In case you didn't see, I filed a CfD on the Non-Interstate route numbers category. It's at [4]. Brian Powell (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on I-194 (MI) being GA'd :)

Congrats! Nice job on the article :) Strato|sphere 02:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK: M-97 (Michigan highway)

Updated DYK query On 23 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article M-97 (Michigan highway), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Interstate 496

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Interstate 496, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Interstate 496 has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Interstate 496, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Mileposts vs. exit #s

I responded to your post on my talk page. --Thomprod (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A contest you may be interested in

Hello, Imzadi1979. There is a new contest for U.S. and Canada roads that you may be interested in. To sign up or for more information, please visit User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup. The contest begins Saturday at 00:00 UTC. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 01:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Emergency Route 31

A photo would be great of this route. It's rare so I'm sure roadfans would enjoy it, and I'm certain out-of-towners are probably wondering what the heck the "little orange sign" means. I'll make room for it to fit into the special route article (my puppy that I've been working on for a while). --Triadian (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Saginaw Trail

I responded to your post on Talk:Saginaw Trail with some questions. I'd appreciate your further input. Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I spent all night expanding the article. Let me know what you think: can it be upgraded to a higher class yet?. I'm not sure how to make a chart of intersections, so if you want to get started on that, it'd be great... TomCat4680 (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey I added a bunch more references to the article. So where do I got to get it re-assessed? I think its at least a B now. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Saginaw Trail

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Saginaw Trail at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Saginaw Trail

Updated DYK query On March 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Saginaw Trail, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, long time no see

I see you signed up for CC 2 - I bent the rules for you - and as a bonus, Dan can help you now ;) - How's life?Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 22:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


You are most welcome. I just posted four more comments in response to your replies to my original review. My explanation of the inflation-template problem is murky. If you play around with the variant in your sandbox, I think you'll see how it works. If not, poke me up, and I'll try again. Finetooth (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for mentioning "magic word". I could see that it worked but did not behave exactly like other templates. I didn't know that it and other similar things had a special name. Finetooth (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Jctintlegend

A tag has been placed on Template:Jctintlegend requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes ({{transclusionless}}).

Thanks. KelleyCook (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


No. Overpush (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

SVGs versus PNGs

If you wish to pursue this further, I'd suggest asking for a bot to help create a list of SVG non-free logos. The operator can even make a second column for the PNG versions of the same name. As an admin, I can verify whether the PNG used to exist and replace the images, listing the others as orphans. On the other hand, if that doesn't work for you, we can go and list the SVG images at FfD so that others will take care of them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Any assistance is appreciated. I just edit articles, and dabble in the other stuff on WP, but I knew that the one logo was an issue. I didn't know about the others until later on this evening. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Stumbled onto a source you might could use.

IIRC, you were requested to find sources for the statement that AASHTO policy is to use the shortest alignment possible. While searching for a source completely different, I stumbled across something you might be able to use, check out page 97 the Legislative history page for Utah SR 6 at [5] This is referring to US 6 being re-aligned near Provo Utah to comply. It may or may not help you, but hey I tried. 22:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ohh it gets better, 2 pages down the actual guideline is cited. I think maybe you can use this.Dave (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Dave! Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Interstate Bridge (Marinette, Wisconsin – Menominee, Michigan)

Updated DYK query On May 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Interstate Bridge (Marinette, Wisconsin – Menominee, Michigan), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

JamieS93 18:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re; Routes

Hey. Images should never interfere with spacing and headers; the problem was that the left-aligned image was breaking up the level three heading below it on larger resolutions (mine is 1440x900, for example). The solution was going to add {{-}}, which adds a break to fix such issues, but that left a massive whitespace gap. Since it was alternating image placements anyway, i just moved it right to fix the issue. Thanks, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for M-28 Business (Newberry, Michigan)

Updated DYK query On June 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article M-28 Business (Newberry, Michigan), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

new standard for ELG? (as your edit to CA SR 186)

Where's the standard? Mgillfr (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:ELG#Standard_columns. County (or other regional subdivision (e.g. parish in Louisiana), if applicable): The name of the county or subdivision, wikilinked, that the exit is in. This should be formatted as a rowspan to encompass all exits. This column is not used and should not be included for routes that are within a single subdivision, and should be left out if the state or country has no commonly used subdivisions.
As you can see in the above quote, single-county routes shouldn't have a county column. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I was also talking about the other revision Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) made. Mgillfr (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Why have two rows in a table when one will suffice? That's simply being efficient. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Like CA SR 78, at the first row of junctions, there'd be a whole hodgepodge of notes in one table cell that readers may get tired of reading. Furthermore, it doesn't imply that the continuation junction is indeed signed on BGS. Mgillfr (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Look, I honestly don't care, but my preference is to keep things to one row when it involves a single milemarker, or postmile if it's CA, to keep things less cluttered. There's no reason that the notes column has to be kept short. The notes combined as they aren't that long, and if they were longer, a linebreak would keep things neater. 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
If you don't care, then how are you maintaining the junction lists in your state? And not to rain on your parade or anything, but most of all your junction lists lack control cities. I know this because I've been to Michigan and saw signs with control cities, just like you've been to California. You should know this too because you can use Google Maps Street View to find the control cities. Mgillfr (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OD As articles are prepped for GANs at the B-Class level, control cities are being added. Articles below that level may or may not have had them added at the time the junction lists were first created. Street view wasn't always available for most of Michigan until recently, and frankly, I work 45–50 hours a week in addition to being in a new relationship. I don't always have the time to spend on articles anymore since I moved to the Grand Rapids area to take the new job.

Concerning the issue at hand, Michigan articles don't duplicate mile posts with two lines. Such a thing like in the SR 186 article would be handled in the notes column only. I think the closest thing to a duplication in Michigan articles concerns two exits with the same number that appear in different directions of a freeway. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind about all I said about Michigan, I'll just stick with California's junction lists. Mgillfr (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
That's probably the best suggestion you've made today. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WT:ELG poll

I noticed you had concerns with me closing the poll at WT:ELG regarding the hybrid major intersections table. Among these concerns, you had said that many USRD regulars hadn't commented. Is it possible for you to give me a list of these regulars so I can contact them on their talk pages? In addition, you said we needed users from UKRD and CRWP to comment; so far, two UK users have voted. Would you like me to place notices about this poll at WT:CRWP, WT:UKRD, and WT:HWY as well so we can get more potential voters? Dough4872 (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My biggest concern was that ELG potentially affects all highway projects, and the discussion thus far was limited to only USRD. Yes, there was some participation by UKRD, but all of the projects (WP:HWY, WP:CRWP, WP:UKRD) should have had notices in addition to WP:USRD. The second concern is that colors as a secondary indicator are already in use to a degree under ELG for grade-separated exit lists. A minor modification to the standard to include at-grade junction lists and allow the current usage of colors as secondary indicators of information. I've always felt that at-grade junction lists should follow the standards of ELG, and have done so, with the exception of the usage of colors as a secondary indicator. (Yes, some older, un-"upgraded" articles in MSHP have used the colors only without proper notes, but I'm only one person doing the upgrades.) I understand that there have been edit wars over exit lists, but there will always be edit wars, even when guidelines are absolute because of WP:IAR. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have notified the three WikiProjects about the ELG poll. Is it possible to give me a list of the USRD regulars that have not voted so I can notify them about the poll on their talk pages? Dough4872 (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


What was this all about? Seriously, did you momentarily think I shouldn't send him links like that, I'll keep that in mind if so. I only gave it to him because of his huge interest in trains, it wasn't spamming. I don't normally do that, but it was a front page story and may be useful as a ref. Sswonk (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It was most likely a minor misclick. If you have rollback rights, you'll see a [rollback] link next to every edit on your watchlist, and you sometimes accidentally revert stuff you shouldn't be reverting. Not a biggie. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
just as JC says... Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for U.S. Route 10 in Michigan

Updated DYK query On August 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U.S. Route 10 in Michigan, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know 14:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR award

Note that at WP:FOUR we are hoping to keep the backlog down by having each nominator second another person's nomination and add it to the records.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you've seen it already

But could you take a look at this if you get a chance? –Juliancolton | Talk 04:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


I think that your sandbox is a good compromise. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 16:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR award for U.S. Route 41 in Michigan

Four Award.PNG Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on U.S. Route 41 in Michigan.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text request

The alt text for M-28 (Michigan highway) is very good. One problem: the alt text for the lead image File:M-28.svg is missing; since that image is arguably purely decorative it'd be OK to use "|link=" for it, as per WP:ALT #When not to specify. (Or was this alt text supposed to be automated?) A smaller problem: the alt text for File:Michigan 480 Marquette County.svg is too long, and in that context could be something as simple as "MARQUETTE 480 COUNTY".

For List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan I have more suggestions:

  • For File:Map of Michigan highlighting Marquette County.svg the alt text doesn't convey the the crucial info as to where Marquette county is, but instead spends too much space on irrelevant details like color. I'd reword it as something like "Marquette County is the north central part of the Michigan's upper peninsula, on the shore of Lake Superior."
  • For File:Marquette County, Mich.svg, again, the alt text should give the gist of what the map tells the sighted reader but is not in the caption. Something like "M 28 runs east-west through Marquette and its county. US 41 coincides with M 28 west of Marquette, but heads southeast out of Marquette. Other highways are all south of M 28." Or perhaps you can improve on that.
  • Alt text was missing for File:Business plate.svg. That link was purely decorative, so I fixed it by adding "|link=" to Template:Jct/US-Bus. By the way, how many of these road templates are there? Is there some way to automate the process of adding "|link=" to them all?

Eubulides (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks. One other bit of advice that I can give you that may save you some work: when in doubt, briefer is better. Our blind reviewer has said several times that he prefers concise alt text, as this saves him time when reading the article. Eubulides (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Stannard Rock Light

Yep, you're right that the Straits of Mackinac are only peripherally within the environs of Lake Superior. That was what you removed said. As I recall, the article said the author saw 28 lighthouses that day (although he didn't give us all their names). Wanna bet that it included Stannard Rock light and Granite Island, Michigan? Its hard to come up with 28 lights if you start out from Sault Ste. Marie and just go to Mackinac. I don't much care about the edit or the change, but you could read the article. Happy editing. Keep up the good work and best wishes! 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Stan

No, I wouldn't say the Straits are in the environs of Lake Superior, since the Straits connect lakes Michigan and Huron. There are many light houses around the Straits area. Shepler's Ferry runs a cruise that goes as far south as Charlevoix. Other cruises they run hit the different lighthouses in the Les Chenaux area, so 28 lighthouses in the Straits area is quite believable to me. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Since I've worked on those articles, I would say that 28 in the Straits would be a real stretch. There are maps that take them out to South Fox Island and down to Poe Reef Light. And He mentioned going up near the Soo, which gets the lights in teh St. Mary's River. Since the article doesn't say, I guess it's all speculation. Even if we could get the author to reply (to settle the bet?) it would be authoritative in the Wiki source sense. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Stan

M-30 Extension

Is there a source for this? I was just up there two days ago and it is not signed in the field past US 10. Strato|sphere 03:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Allen at MDOT supplied me with the Memorandum of Understanding that transferred the roadway to state control as part of M-30. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Does it use Meridian all the way from 20 to 10? Strato|sphere 16:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes it does. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to raise FT criteria to requiring 50% featured

Hi, there is currently a proposal to raise the percentage of articles featured topics need to have featured to 50%, from 1 September 2010, and as someone with a topic with less than 50% of articles featured, this change if passed will directly affect you. Any input on your part to the discussion, and opinions both for and against the proposal, would be most welcome - rst20xx (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award

As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to raise FT criteria to requiring 50% featured

This passed, so your FT(s) need more articles featured by 1 September 2010, or else they will become GTs - rst20xx (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Saginaw Trail

Hey I saw they finally made a map for Saginaw Trail. Think its a GA candidate? (Respond here for flow). TomCat4680 (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing about the article has changed with regards to the GA criteria. GAs don't have to have a map, but it's preferred .There are even some articles that get to ACR before a map is created. Do a check of the article for yourself against the criteria at WP:WIAGA, and if you think it meets the criteria, nominate it at WP:GAN Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I think its good enough. I nominated it. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

re Saginaw Trail

Oh, to each their own personal preference. I generally go with keeping News-type stuff in Notes section, and book/reference-type stuff in References section. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


Congrats on the FA. I feel bad, I meant to chime in, but thought I had more time.Dave (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I second this. FAs are no easy feat. Next stop for BUS M-28: main page. CL (T · C) — 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I'm not in any hurry for a TFA... I have 3 other articles ahead of this one. Next stop for me though is the next FAC, at some point. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fox Sports Detroit

Hey can you do me a favor and covert the bare references in Fox Sports Detroit? I'm not familiar with all the ways to do it. I'm trying to promote it to good article status. Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on it, but you'll have to supply the |accessdate= parameters in the templates. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Just use today's date. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I can do that, but all of the links have gone dead. All of them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the article needs some trimming then. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost done, I just need to format the YouTube videos' links. Btw, I'm not sure if you should use YouTube as a source. I haven't read the article, so it might be ok, Check WP:ELNEVER though for guidance. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you look for archived versions of the Fox Sports links on an archiver? (see Dead_link#Solutions to broken links). TomCat4680 (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. The rest of the links are formated. Good luck hunting. If you find new links for them, use {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} and follow the directions there. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to find them, they changed their servers in October and took everything down. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

From IRC

The article is New York State Route 360. I believe that the information contained within the article is solid; however, the prose could probably use some tweaks. – TMF 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

your dyk hook

Hi, your article for dyk is just a little short of a 5x expansion. See explanation here. Hopefully you can add a little more. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Should be 780 characters longer than the target now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations on increasing the article size! Can you provide a reference for the "centerline" statement. One of the references is a 404 and the other one [6] doesn't mention "centerline". —mattisse (Talk) 01:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The source is: Kulsea, Bill; Shawver, Tom (1980). Making Michigan Move: A History of Michigan Highways and the Michigan Department of Transportation. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Transportation. p. 10. , which is located in the article. It is also the source of the photo of said first centerline. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, it is close enough at 9410 characters (only 186 short). Thanks for the info. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Um... didn't you say yesterday that it needed to be 8,630 characters. Now it is 9,410 characters. That's not "close enough" or "only 186 short". That's 780 characters above the minimum for the 5x expansion, right? I just want to check to make sure my math is correct. Thanks for ticking the hook. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Sorry, I'm late sending you this, but I found out today the star you posted on my profile regarding the contributions I've made to the Michigan Highways article, and do want to say thank you. I enjoy history and writing and Wikipedia gives me a chance to use both. You'll be glad to know also that I found out how to add 'edit summaries', the box being at the bottom of the page (DUH). Anyway, have a Happy Thanksgiving. Igo4U

Posting M-61 Historic Western Terminus

I observed the Infobox for M-76 showing its historic western terminus with M-22. I would like to see M-61's Infobox show its western most historic terminus with US-131 (now Mackinaw Trail), but, for some reason, even after I tried to do it by comparing it with one you did (maybe the M-76/M-22 one), it won't show up that way in M-61's Infobox. If you think this would be of interest information wise, can you post it in M-61's Infobox, because I don't know what I'm doing wrong (BTW, I drove old 61 from M-115 to Mackinaw Trail this past week). Thank you much, and take care. User:Igo4U

I only did 4 highways when I got your reply. I didn't mean any harm. I was only trying to make the articles informative. User:Igo4U, 3-15-2008.

A class review

Thanks, I will implement your suggestions ASAP


I am aware that most 3-digit Interstates run in a single state, as they are freeway loops that provide direct access to cities from major passing highways. However, I feel that it is interesting to note that although they are called "Interstate" highways, they do not in fact run through two or more states.

-hsxeric (talk) 12:18, September 16, 2009

DYK for M-15 (Michigan highway)

Updated DYK query On February 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article M-15 (Michigan highway), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliability indicators

Just thought I'd let you know. I've been trying to prove the reliability of at WP:RSN. In the process, however, I found that the city of Toronto Archives uses Christopher Bessert's website as a source for describing the Queen Elizabeth Way. If you'd like to see, goto the archives, click 'Search the archives', search for "Queen Elizabeth Way". Select the third result down (File 13 - Bronte Bridge on Queen Elizabeth Way - May 27, 1949). Now in the right frame, select Queen Elizabeth Way under the Subjects header.

You may wish to make a case for it. I know he has appeared in several newspapers, and that meets the criteria of using a self-published website of an established expert who is covered in multiple reliable third-party sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing up beating heart cadaver. I appreciate it. E2eamon (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Saginaw Trail

FYI Saginaw Trail got reviewed again. Talk:Saginaw_Trail/GA1. I appreciate your continued help and support. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It passed!!!! (does the dance of joy). TomCat4680 (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

M-52 DYK

There's been some additional discussion that you may want to take a look at. cmadler (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for M-52 (Michigan highway)

Updated DYK query On March 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article M-52 (Michigan highway), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 12:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


You have made a review at WP:USRD/ACR. The nominator has made attempts to address your concerns. Would you mind taking another look at the article? --Rschen7754 07:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Colorado State Highway 35

You've complained to me about the stub drive before, and I understand. But this highway is barely a mile long. How much more can you expect? I've written all the major sections. Pzoxicuvybtnrm 01:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Napoleonic Triple Crown

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown upon Imzadi1979 for your contributions to Michigan road articles in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Well done, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jeni (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DTTR. Imzadi1979 (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:TTR. Jeni (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Upper Peninsula newspapers

I, you are right about the newspapers. I am right that the south end of the UP is part of it, too. What about a separate article (I know they hate list articles) that is a list of newspapers in the UP. I would also point out that in The Thumb and Northern Michigan there are comprehensive lists of newspapers. I believe that there is a list of newspapers in Michigan, but I could be wrong about that. What do you think? Should this be put up for discussion on the discussion page? Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Stan

There is already a list of all the newspapers in Michigan. To add all of the UP papers to the UP article is overkill. That sentence there is more of a summary than an attempt to be comprehensive. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Link added. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
That works for me. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Stan

Join the WP:USRDCUP 2010!

We're going to go ahead and try this again! The contest will begin April 1. It is a contest to encourage editors to improve teh quality of WP:USRD articles and participate in USRD. Precautions will be taken to make sure that people do not "game the system" and bring article quality down. Please sign up ASAP! Announcements regarding the contest will be made at WP:USRDCUP, Twitter, and/or IRC. --Rschen7754 06:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Interstate and U.S. highways in Maryland

Just send it to AFD. No need for a FLRC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 19:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Actually, it might be best to move the sources to the separate Interstate and US articles first. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Interstate 375 (Michigan)

GAN almost done. I only had one minor concern; see the talk page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review query

Please see my comments at Talk:Interstate 275 (Michigan). Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


I can't exactly say that I agree with your actions on IRC last night, but I know that I did respond with anger in turn and that was not acceptable. For my part, I do apologize and I hope that we will be able to work together if/when I return in the future. --Rschen7754 05:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I was in the right either. There was a few years of some frustrations that vented at once in ways that maybe they shouldn't have. At the core, we have similar overall visions of things, our details just might be different sometimes. I hope that your break serves you well. I know my break this last fall where I just kinda kept up with things on my watch list helped when other parts of my life weren't the most pleasant. We'll still be working together just as well as always when the time comes that you decide to return. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


I just closed this discussion. It would be great if you could help with the clean up. I can delete them once they are orphaned. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


What just happened was just an evil ruse. It's safe to come back. —Fredddie 23:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


Apparently they're interviewing us - see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews3 and feel free to answer. --Rschen7754 06:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a question

Do GAN, ACR, and FAC have to be nominated by the "major contributor"? --PCB 20:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN no, but it's polite not to nominate other editors' articles without their knowledge. FAC requires permission from the major contributors, or the nomination will be closed. Our project ACR has had no set rules on this, but don't be surprised if consensus is for adopting FAC's rules. Imzadi 1979  21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
What about WP:IAR? --PCB 01:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

US roads table

I finished the table you requested for US roads. It is at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Roads-1 and will update daily. You can transclude it to any other place it is desired. The code that generates this table is here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


I offer my most sincere apologies as to nominating County Route S1 (California) for GA. From your polite words in the GA review I believe you have subtly implied that you are extremely frustrated with me as a new user. (I also see what Rschen meant by "New users keep getting more stubborn and clueless.") I realize that I was wrong to:

  1. Split S1 off of the list without proper discussion (although I do believe it was important enough)
  2. Nominate it for GA although it was a bit short and had a few MOS vios, etc.

I have already failed three GA's; all three GA's had problems like that I was not the major contributor; was not good enough, etc. I see that I should have already realized exactly what quality a GA needs to be, yet I still nominated CR S1 for GAN. For my next nomination, I will not nominate until I have gotten peer review and approval.

P.S. Is [7] a reliable source? It says in the "about" section that it was created by one person. Should that not be a self published? --PCB 22:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not being a major contributor to an article is not a problem in nominating an article for reviews. Anyone can nominate any article for anything if it meets the criteria for that status. When someone is not a major contributor though, there's no guarantee that they are familiar with the subject matter or the sources used in the article. I have floating around here, in various locations, photocopies of pages from any library books I used as sources. I have digital scans of maps. I know which webpages I used and where in that website I found the information. For GIS sources, I know which person helped me pull out the information referenced direct to GIS information. That's basically the reason why FAC requires someone to have at least consulted the major contributors of an article. It's not so much that you get permission, but you at least don't get disapproval of the potential nomination.
I'm not frustrated with you as a new editor. You're doing some decent work in the Colorado articles, and trust me, there are editors much worse than either of us in terms of stubbornness. There's no minimum length for a GA, per se. I'd say that honestly, a GA should be long enough to meet the minimum length requirements of DYK, but beyond that the article wasn't too short. Parts of the article were too short though. A good lead, which is needed for GA status, needs to summarize the whole article. If a reader only looks at the lead and infobox, they should have a decent idea of what the article is about. S1 had no historical information in the lead, which is very bad. Ideally, before you nominate something at GAN, scan the article looking for the obvious MOS errors. Make sure the lead summarizes all the sections of the article. Verify that the sources meet Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The article doesn't need to be peer reviewed first, at least not in the formalized sense. I participate in discussions on the IRC channel, and there I chat with several of the USRD editors. They've seen my articles, and they offer suggestions. They will help proofread articles, but you have to reach out to them first.
My frustrations in my dealings with you aren't related to your "newness" around here. Rather it's that you seem to be "gaming the system". You're looking for easy targets for points in the USRDCup. That's included nominating articles you've never edited (Guam Highway 1) at GAN, to butting into an existing GAN (Eisenhower Tunnel) to help make a few of the needed edits to the article, then claiming "credit" for getting the article passed. If you had done more work on the article, if you had consulted with Dave by dropping a line, "hey, I see you nominated Eisenhower Tunnel at GAN. I'm interested in Colorado articles, so maybe I can give you a hand with it?" then yeah, some of us would have been more comfortable with you taking some credit for the article. Wikipedia isn't about points in a contest, or even about rankings on a leaderboard. It's about writing the best articles on our subject matter that we can. Yeah, I take a lot of pride in the fact that Michigan has been sitting at or near the top of the leaderboard since February 2008. A couple of GAs or even the handful of FAs didn't get Michigan there. Michigan got there because a couple of us worked to expand the existing stub articles to B (and later C as C didn't exist at that time) class status back in early 2008. Of course if I want to keep Michigan in the top 10, I need to keep improving articles, and improving older articles as the standards increase.
The reason you were wrong to split S1 back into a separate article is that there was a consensus to merge the content into the list articles. Those lists need cleanup and organization. The sections of the lists aren't even consistently subdivided. There are varying levels of importance to the county roads in the lists, but honestly, GA status won't save anything from a merger. There have been two featured lists created for USRD that have been de-listed because of quality or subject-matter issues. One list was completely deleted, and a featured topic based around that list was de-listed. The other list was split in half, but neither half has been nominated at FLC yet. Any article, regardless of assessment rating, can be deleted, even featured articles, "our finest work", have been sent to AfD before and deleted.
If S1 was really important enough to have a separate article, and I think it might be, then you should be able to lay out an argument to that effect. There's an essay around here called Bold, Revert, Discuss. Sometimes we have to be bold in making a change. Then we have to wait to see if anyone reverts that change. If not, your change is acceptible. If it's reverted, then you have to discuss the changes. A new consensus will be formed around those proposed changes and you can move forward. Your recreation of the article was bold, but you never waited to see if it would be reverted. It certainly hasn't been discussed.
One last point I want to discuss with you before I sign off this now lengthy reply. Yes, Michigan Highways is technically a SPS. Standards regarding SPSs have changed since some of the Michigan GAs were sent through GAN, and as articles are sent to ACR or FAC, using that source has been phased out. At the same time though, there have been discussions that the website is actually allowed under an exception in the SPS rules. MDOT, the Library of Michigan, the Detroit Free Press, the Traverse City Record-Eagle have all cited the website as a source at various times. At some point, I will likely pull the reference material together to "prove" the website meets the exception to the SPS rules, and validate its usage as a source. Until I do that though, I've been phasing out usage of the website as a source in the articles over time. Imzadi 1979  00:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the kind comments. However, I want to clarify some things. I am not going for USRD cup anymore. Ever since Rschen retired and Mitch docked me some points for some MOS vios, I lost my motivation. I realize this may sound unsportsmanlike, but I truly just felt no need to go further. Second, I am no longer working in Colorado. I realize that after a short period, I have no affiliation with Colorado myself. I asked myself "Why Colorado?" In fact, I don't even know why I chose Colorado. So if you'll notice, I am moving back to California, my home state. Here, I feel more of a connection with the routes; some even that I've traveled. And I also appreciate the constructive criticism; I always thought was a reliable source. --PCB 01:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: should I merge S1 back into the list? --PCB 01:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Detroit tag

Hi! In regards to this edit summary - In order to add the Detroit tag, one has to add a Michigan tag. Therefore the seemingly redundant "michigan" tag becomes essential if someone wants to mark the article as a subject important to Detroit. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Pay more attention to detail

You must have a really big ego! In my opinion, you should start checking for spelling and clerical errors more often before you save your edits. You also should be more familiar with the geography of the area in regards to the article that you are working on. I realize you have written or edited over a million Wikipedia articles, however, you need to be more thoughtful with how you do your edits.

To what are you referring? Please reply, and sign your posts. Imzadi 1979  18:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I am referring to your edits on Minnesota State Highway articles. —Damon207 (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've edited several articles. To what are you referring? Imzadi 1979  00:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Updating for infobox update?

That edit summary "updating for infobox update" seems a bit confusing, since some edits are deleting parameters (such as "cities" on Illinois state routes) without explaining further. It took me a few minutes to find Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards#Major cities, which I assume is the purpose of those deletions. Perhaps the edit summaries could provide link to what is being cleaned up or what guidelines the edits are conforming to, so it doesn't leave a trail of confused editors in its wake. --Closeapple (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for updating Washington's highway articles with the new infobox parameter. –CGTalk 12:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Updating road infobox problems

I don't know if you're aware of this, bu your spree of updates for road infoboxes has messed many of them up, one of which is (List of county routes in Suffolk County, New York (1–25)). Unfortunately, my reversal of your actions hasn't fixed the situation. Sorry if I sound like a pain, but I just saw some problems here. ----DanTD (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is being overhauled. Parameter names are being deprecated. My changes were to switch them over to the new names. Once the overhaul is completed, the old names will not work. As a side note, most of the infoboxes in that list should be using {{infobox road small}}, not the main one. Imzadi 1979  21:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
state=NY-C is no longer valid; it should be state=NY, and type=CR. That's what caused the infoboxes to break. I fixed one of them; doing the rest like this will fix the problems. --Rschen7754 21:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


Can you delete this file? Please... -тнєѕαℓχ - tคlк - ¢σηтяιвυтισηѕ 00:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an admin. I can't. Imzadi 1979  00:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Route 12 edit

I don't agree with you removal of the 'Iron Brigade' designation mention and photo I added to this article. By the reasoning given, the article should not have sections in it dedicated to individual states. The fact that four states have designated it as the 'Iron Brigade Highway' is of interest beyond the articles on the individual states. I would have thought you would have sought to discuss the removal with me before doing so, but I guess I'm not up on Wiki etiquette. Dwight Burdette 20:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeebee (talkcontribs)

Actually, you're about right on the etiquette. There is a concept called Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold in adding it, I reverted you, and now we're discussing it. No previous consultation is needed to revert a change to any article made by anyone at any time.
As for the information itself, well, here's my opinion. Memorial highway designations are, frankly, a dime a dozen. Michigan has eight (!) separate "Veterans Memorial Highways", not counting the designations related to specific wars or military units. The fact that a designation was created really isn't very historical in terms of the overall US 12 in a national context. It is appropriate on a state-level context, and should be added to the three applicable states. The article, U.S. Route 41 in Michigan, a featured article does have a section on all of the memorial highway names applied to the roadway, so the coverage can be done, and done very well. (Btw, you have no reliable source to back up the Illinois designation. Bulletin board or forum postings are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia, and I couldn't find any other sources online to replace it.)
The national-detail articles on US Highways (and the Intestates) should be a general overview and a summary of the major points of the state-detail articles. Adding a single memorial highway designation to the article, to the exclusion of others, gives that single designation undue weight, implying by omission that no other sections of the road have names. Even the fact that three (or four) states applied the same name isn't that special. U.S. Route 40 is the National Road in several states, but 2) that name dates back to the early days of the country, and 2) the road has always carried that name. This name is more recent and done many years after the time of the Iron Brigade in their honor, and not implying any special connection between the geographic location of roadway and the units of the brigade. Imzadi 1979  21:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
With respect to the validity of the Illinois citation, it seems to me that it is a reasonable assumption that given the fact that the designation has been effected by three other states corroborates that the Illinois eyewitness account is reliable, irrespective of the forum it appears in. Common sense should lead one to conclude that it is highly unlikely that someone would falsely claim they saw signs confirming this on a highway. With respect to the supposed meaninglessness of the designation, I once again note that this was done in four states and this gives weight to its significance. I have made many contributions to Wiki articles and the only time anyone has removed my contribution was an employee of the subject of the article who was trying to exploit the article for commercial purposes. I'm not not in the habit of making 'bold' potentioally objectionable contributions. I'm not interested in a contest of wills so I guess your removal will stand. I made a good-faith contribution and I will let it stand at that. I don't want to discuss it further. Dwight Burdette 21:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeebee (talkcontribs)
By the way, it's been ten years since I've driven it, but on east-bound I-94 on the first rest stop in Michigan after the Indiana border there was an historical marker documenting the significance of the Iron Brigade and its association with the highway. Of course, I-94 is not U.S. 12,though they are related, and I forget exactly what the marker said, but the point is that an historical marker independently erected from the MDOT or the Michigan legislature further confirms the significance. Dwight Burdette 22:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeebee (talkcontribs)
Three comments: all material added to articles can be contested. If contested, you need to add a source. The Edit Window itself says that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." (Emphasis theirs.) We require content to be verifiable against reliable sources, and forum postings are not reliable on Wikipedia. That's policy, and yes, policy trumps "assumptions" however reasonable and "common sense". I don't doubt that the designation exists in Illinois, but you need to find a source, just like you found sources for the other three states, and that source for Illinois needs to be of the calibre of the sources for Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin. Even a photo of a sign in Illinois is valid proof that the designation exists there. Illinois' participation was not required for the other three states to name their roadways independently of each other, and that single, anonymous poster on the forum could be mistaken about signage.
Secondly, I didn't say that the designation was meaningless, I didn't say that the history was insignificant. I said that memorial highway designations were common. The fact that four states did it doesn't make the name especially notable. The fact that the historical commission in charge of markers erected one doesn't matter in the discussion on the national article. Listing a single memorial designation for three (or four) states, when there are other similar designations in the ten states gives that single designation undue weight. The implication is that no others exist, but there are a total of six memorial designations for US 12 in just Michigan alone. The entire roadway nationally does not carry the name, if it did, it would be an alternate name listed in the infobox, mentioned in the lead, and probably have a full paragraph or section on the history of the name in the article. Since there isn't much more to say other than "this name exists", at the moment, it shouldn't be in the national-detail article. It is appropriate to list in the state-detail article, which as you'll notice has been retained. In fact, I even reformatted the references to match the citation format in use in the Michigan article.
Lastly, please, please, sign your posts on talk pages with the four tildes ~~~~. The fact that you append your real name in your edit summaries is unique, but not helpful. If you don't sign your postings, several things happen. There is no date and time stamp on your posts. The archival bots don't know how old the section is then, unless someone replies to you, so sections will never get archived properly. Third, no signature means no links to your user page or talk page, making it harder for others to get in touch with you unless the signature bot catches your edits.
I'm not being mean about removing your additions to the article, but you're just adding information in the wrong place. Imzadi 1979  22:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I do sign my additions to talk pages but it appears to have no effect. I'm going to add four tildes to this response and wait before saving it just to be sure I have done so. I sign my name to the Edit summary because I believe in transparency and don't believe in hiding behind anonymity. I understand not everyone shares this view and this puts me at something of a disadvantage. I believe in what I do and back it up. I have added four tildes to this last sentence which I have inserted in front of them and can see them, but I can assure you they will not be recognized. Dwight Burdette 22:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeebee (talkcontribs)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Check your user preferences. See what the formatting of your signature is there. If it's not valid, the server might not insert anything. Also, try signing a post and instead of saving it, hit "Show preview" to see what it does. (If it's working right, there would be a preview of your signature.) If you really believe in transparency, check out WP:RENAME about changing your user name on here to your actual name. Imzadi 1979  22:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

My preferences are with the box checked:

"Preview of existing signature: Dwight Burdette Signature: Sign my name using the provided wikitext. If unchecked, the contents of the box above will be treated as your nickname and link automatically to your user page. If checked, the above markup will be used for your name when you sign with Dwight Burdette or Dwight Burdette 22:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC); including any Wiki markup, links, or other valid formatting that it includes. Do not use images, templates, or external links in your signature. Please ensure your custom signature complies with the relevant guideline. Also, if you are going to use a displayed pipe ("|") character (i.e. not part of a piped link), please use | for the pipe character; it can otherwise cause templates to fail." With the box checked, I would expect "Dwight Burdette 22:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)" to sign my name. What am I doing wrong? Dwight Burdette 22:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeebee (talkcontribs)

Try unchecking the box. Imzadi 1979  22:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The box has been unchecked. A preview indicates my response will be signed. Thank you. By your criterion, no pictures can be added to the article since they would necessarily reflect only a particular stretch of the highway. I think this makes for a very dull article. Dwight Burdette (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad that we solved that dilemma. No, that criterion doesn't apply to the photo, it applies to the prose. Since the photo corresponded to the prose, I removed it too. Imzadi 1979  23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
With a minimal amount of effort you would have been able to determine that I'm not a casual contributor to Wikipedia. As such, I feel I was due a discussion before removing my contribution. In the absence of this, your removal seemed to me arbitrary. You don't agree. Fine. We apparently have philosophical differences on what constitutes a good article or good etiquette. Dwight Burdette (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I did look at your user page and talk page at some point in the last month or so, so I'm not unfamiliar with you. I was only following the tenets of WP:BRD. No where is there a requirement to consult other editors before removing content of any kind. I'm sorry you don't agree, but honestly, that's just not how things around here work, or have worked in my tenure here. Once again, you were "bold" in making an edit to the article (and bold doesn't have to mean anything more than making relatively simple edits, or total article overhauls), I reverted you, and we're discussing it. Case closed. Imzadi 1979  23:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt you're not required by Wikipedia to conform a to standard of etiquette I have suggested. Dwight Burdette (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox road small

Is there really still the need for {{Infobox road small}}. If an option was added to {{Infobox road}} for the location parameter and an option for setting the marker_image/shield to a smaller size, then just not filling in all the parameters in Infobox road would give the same result as Infobox road small. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That could work, but I think part of the concept was that by eliminating the extra parameters forced the box to stay small. We've fought off proposals to add parameters to IRS to match some from IR because then, IRS wouldn't be "small" anymore. Plus, IRS is designed to supplement IR, so it doesn't need links at the bottom of each box. Most pages that use it have up to a dozen or more transclusions, meaning the small size needs to be maintained. Imzadi 1979  19:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Well a |size=small param in Infobox road could be used to make the shields smaller, hide the sub-heading dividers and hide the links at the bottom. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Could we also code that to disallow the entire junctions and locations sections, since both are essentially subsumed into the |location= parameter? We would need to pass the small parameter through to and modify all of the current shieldmain subtemplates to allow that parameter to specify the alternate, smaller size. Imzadi 1979  21:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm just thinking that especially for now, we should keep the two separate. Additionally, it would be nice to allow the IR code to stabilize a bit before we embark on the next endeavor. That's why I'm proposing we get all of the needed location-type parameters we need together now, make one update to accommodate them in the main template. We can update the test switches subtemplates and the color subtemplate as needed to accomplish any further consolidations. This frenetic pace though isn't helping, and TMF will be busy here for a while, and I'm not and admin (yet, I hope) that I can make the template edits. Imzadi 1979  22:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Road articles with Infobox issues

There are a few USA road articles where the state is not set to anything so are not showing the browse links properly. I can simply fix that by adding |country=USA but sometimes it's more appropriate to set the state, type and route parameters. The list is here if you are willing to take a look at fixing them. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand Highways

Please stop messing with New Zealand highway templates. Switching to a template which uses the wording "major cities" is completely inappropriate. dramatic (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We can switch the output to say "Destinations" for |country=NZL if you prefer, but most of the highway infoboxes are being converted over one country at a time to standardize the templates and consolidate 40+ templates into one. Imzadi 1979  22:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
There are other issues, for example, a tourist route is nothing like an alternate name for a highway. (e.g. only a certain portion of SH 7 is on the Alpine Pacific triangle route, so it is wrong to list that as an alternate name). Wikiproject New Zealand is more than happy to maintain this template, and we would have appreciated discussion at the project talk page listed on the project tag. dramatic (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
PS I have ceased reverting for now. If you wish to suggest cosmetic/parameter changes to make the NZ template look more like the road template, please do so.

Peshekee River Bridge

I had made changes to your discussion of the Peshekee Bridge article as the statement... "It was bypassed by a new bridge built over the Peshekee River on US 41/M-28 in the late 1995 and subsequently abandoned as a roadway." This leads one to believe the the old, abandoned bridge was in use up till 1995. This is not so as I have lived in the Republic area for many years in the late 1960s through the 1970s and this bridge was not used for vehicular traffic. I am not sure of the date it was stopped being used, I would presume in the late 1940s when US 41 and M 28 were constructed on it's present route. The date of 1947 was observed by me when resurfacing was done in 1977 or 1978 as the milling of the old asphalt revealed the date on one concrete section. Location of this section is in Clarksburg Location, .5 miles East of the junction of County Road CKL. Poikää (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That may be, but unfortunately your memory isn't a reliable source. The information you added contradicts what MDOT has said on the matter. The 1995 date comes from the construction company that built the replacement bridge. That's why I reverted the date. As for my recollection, I was on the old bridge the week before I got my driver's permit in 1995, and when I received my permit, the new bridge was open. As such, I've never driven over the old bridge, only been a passenger. Imzadi 1979  21:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
One other point, there are 4 articles that discuss this bridge: M-28 (Michigan highway), U.S. Route 41 in Michigan, Trunk Line Bridge No. 1 and M-15 (Michigan highway) in order of article creation/content addition. I've tried to keep the details in sync between them. Imzadi 1979  22:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The present US41/M28 bridge was indeed new in 1995 under contract with A. Lindberg & Sons. The company had made the build side by side with the old steel reinforced concrete structure. This old structure was rapidly deteriorating because of traffic and decay from road salt and when the new 41 bridge was complete the old was razed. In this view you are correct but the blend of facts lead one to believe that the old Trunk Line Bridge No1 was in use through 1995.
The "preserved" Trunk Line Bridge No1 is still in place but was not used by vehicular traffic since the late 1940s. It could not handle any of today's traffic or that of 1995. The bridge is only used for pedestrian traffic and for fishing. The West and East approaches have been trenched and the roads blocked. I doubt if a four wheeler could pass these barriers! Also the old roadway approaches are very narrow. As I have lived in the area, these are facts that I can confirm with people from the Marquette County Road Commission where I have worked.
Not meaning to make a big debate out of this but if you are in the area, please email me and we can walk this area of the bridge and I have access to county documents at the main office in Ishpeming. Leave the statement in question if you want but the OLD OLD Trunk Bridge across the Peshekee River was not a bypass prior to 1995. Poikää (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
As I said on my user page, I live in the Grand Rapids area. As for your comments, MDOT has a photo of the old bridge on their website, the same page that documents the 1914 bridge here. So according to MDOT, that was the same bridge bypassed in 1995. This is also supported by the National Register of Historic Places listing information. That means according to the sources, the bridge that's slowly deteriorating south of the current US 41/M-28 highway bridge is the 1914 bridge. You'll have to prove MDOT and the NRHP wrong to dispute that. Imzadi 1979  23:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Jhing Chik Jhing


Thanks a lot for the tags and the explanations. I am an ex-deletionist around hereSmiley.svg. These days I don't do anything at enwiki at all and spend most of my time at mlwiki where I am a sysop. I was thinking of tagging all those images for deletion myself but then I did not want to come to enwiki again and again to follow up on those discussions, as there was the possibility of the uploader of the images being associated with the film. Hence I requested the latest deletion-active admin. Thanks for taking the lead. Best wishes -- Raziman T V (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Austrialian State Codes

moved to Template talk:Infobox road#Australian State Codes Imzadi 1979  00:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Template changing discussion

Where do you think would be the best place to discuss some of these road templates where the changes were undone? Would it be to nominte some of the templates at WP:TFD and then a discussion could take place there or is it better on some project pages or on the template talk pages? -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

India's already being discussed at Template talk:Indian expressways. Re the rest... my opinion is sending it to TFD, but I'd like to see what the other people say. --Rschen7754 18:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
{{Infobox UAE road}} sent to TFD. --Rschen7754 18:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Well, here's the issue. For whatever reason, certain members of WP:UKRD see any actions by members of WP:USRD as some giant conspiracy to change how UKRD operates, whether or not USRD as a project is involved. I think we've seen a certain member of that project on a reversion spree to prove a point. There are two options for a discussion. Since all highway articles fall under the scope of WP:HWY, which is an umbrella project for USRD. UKRD, WP:INR and WP:CRWP, the parent project could be a forum to discuss some minimum standards for highway articles. If so, I think that the proposal should be similar to: "Should WP:HWY have a minimum standard for infoboxes and article formats. Subprojects like CRWP. INR, UKRD and USRD can apply stricter standards, but the minimum standards shall apply wherever there is no regional highway project." That's option A. Option B is to send the redundant templates to TfD.
I truly believe that the English Wikipedia does not need dozens of infoboxes for highways, many of which don't comply with the manual of style in some way or another. Most of them have accessibility concerns around the colors used. Highway articles on other language editions of Wikipedia all use the same infobox. The infobox on fr:Interstate 99 doesn't need to look like the infobox on Interstate 99 just because it's a US highway. Could all of the different templates be updated to use {{infobox}} and update the color schemes for accessibility? Yes, but once the templates start to look the same, it's trivial to merge them together so one template, with the necessary subtemplates, can function globally. Imzadi 1979  19:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the day will come when we have to add standards of some sort to HWY, but I don't really want to see HWY become another level of bureaucracy. If HWY does get a standards page, it should be pretty basic, something like "Articles should have some sort of route description, some sort of history, and a junction list." Junction lists are covered by RJL. --Rschen7754 19:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The functional projects (CRWP. UKRD, USRD) already have standards that exceed the minimum, although there is some debate about one project and RJL. Essentially HWY should have the minimum standards for articles not covered by an existing WikiProject. Icon usage in some of the Malaysian articles violates MOS:ICON by using the marker for a highway in running prose without any additional text. Users with a screen reader would get the graphic's file name and not the highway name. That's the sort of basics I'd propose for a minimum standard. "This is the basic default article structure that has some version of these sections (RD, H, JL). This is the minimum requirements attached to icon usage (MOS:ICON) and this is the minimum for junction list formats (MOS:RJL)." Imzadi 1979  20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not even a member of WP:USRD. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't mean you're not in on the "conspiracy" though. Imzadi 1979  20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

re FPOC query

At Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:U.S. Roads there is a need for an opinion on the usage of references in portals. The reviewer is asking for the FPOC director to add an opinion on the issue. Thanks in advance, Imzadi 1979  23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, but only because of your awesome username. :P -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Iranian expressways

Hi Excuse me why are you so intrested in deleting these templates? Nima Farid (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

They are redundant to {{infobox road}}, which has been upgraded and extended to better support highway articles around the world. The concept has been simple, to update one template to current accessibility and style guidelines that could work for all highway articles, regardless of country. That has been a simpler task than updating between 40 and 80 separate infobox templates to the same accessibility and style guidelines. Imzadi 1979  09:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit and review request

Much as I'd like to help, the weight of other obligations is forcing me to say "no" more often than not these days. I no longer have time to do copyedits of whole articles, and I devote my reviewing time chiefly to PR, while making an occasional appearance at FAC and rarely at GAN. We can't seem to catch up at PR, and things don't look much better at FAC. I'd suggest asking formally for a review through WP:PR and seeking a copyedit elsewhere, perhaps via WP:PRV. If the article comes up through PR and no other reviewer picks it up, I'll review it for sure at that point. Finetooth (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Infobox characters

"I'll go on record as supporting all deletions of templates redundant to {{infobox character}}. I'm amazed at how many seem to be found and nominated daily."

Category:Fictional character infobox templates, jsyk, if you're curious. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! And I thought the 40 or so highway infoboxes we've found and worked on consolidating were bad. Thanks for the heads up on that. Imzadi 1979  09:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I'll be working on it too, so you won't be alone. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Questionable edits

Could you take a look at some of User:Damon207's edits? Specifically, these three: [8], [9], [10]. I'm almost positive removing the non-breaking space between "MN" and the number is undesirable as well as adding CR 14 to the jct template for MN-232's terminus, implying that it's duplexed with 65 when it isn't. Linking to the list of Minnesota state highways instead of just highway sounds very wrong, and I don't think it's good to be expanding abbreviations in the junction list (Twp. -> Township, Ave. -> Avenue, etc.)

I'm still not familiar enough with USRD conventions, written and unwritten, to be able to say anything firm about these edits. Thanks. --Sable232 (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a few, but I can say that convention has been to list the different roads in the infobox at a junction with a slash. In the jct. list, I put them on separate lines if they aren't concurrent. I look at it this way, for the infobox the terminus is at MN 65/CR 14 intersection. In the jct. list though, they should be on separate lines with appropriate directions. (If CR 14 only goes east from the intersection, the second line should be CR 14 east.)
You're right, the non-breaking space is desirable under the MOS though. This will prevent the MN and the number from appearing on separate lines if a line break falls in between them. That will keep them together. As for the abbreviations, others might do otherwise, but I always list full road names, including road types like Avenue. Same for Twp. -> Township. In Michigan articles, I link to the article on the Michigan Highway System and pipe it to "state trunkline highway". I do that though to help explain what's not a commonly known term outside of Michigan.
I will say that MN needs a good does of consistency applied to the articles. There are periods in the hand-typed references to US Highways and County Roads, when they shouldn't have them. {{jct}} should be used wherever practical in the infoboxes and junction lists. And honestly, the articles should either be renamed to Trunk Highway, or the article text should be using the term. That is the official name from Mn/DOT as used in the log files and on the state map. When we get some template work on the infobox consolidation completed, and I get the last couple of Michigan articles expanded, I plan on shifting work over to MN articles where I can. Imzadi 1979  01:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe later on we should work out a few standards/guidelines for MNSH. --Sable232 (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you two really realize how much work I did over the last few years to improve the Minnesota State Highway articles? Where were you Sable232 ? You disappeared completely from editing the MN highway articles from 2007 to 2010 -- and now suddenly you reappear and are an authority ? You have no idea - over time - what a drastic improvement to a majority of those articles I made, especially in accuracy of the facts. I never received a barnstar or anything. A majority of the MN highway articles had no route description or history at all. You showed no interest at all in recent years Sable232 and now all of a sudden your back ? --Damon207 (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Take your personal argument off my talk page. In any event, it's perfectly acceptable for interests to wax and wane over time. The community owns the articles, not you, Damon. If Sable is taking an interest now in quality and standards, that should be encouraged. Now, this conversation here is closed. Imzadi 1979  19:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Rush Street infobox

When the infobox has been changed to accomodate the features the article is currently using, then change the infobox. There is no good reason to strip the article of infobox content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Forest Highway 16

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Forest Highway 16 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ziebart Edit

Why were the links in dates removed from the Ziebart article?Dwight Burdette (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Linking dates for the sake of linking dates is frowned upon now. See MOS:UNLINKYEARS for details. Imzadi 1979  10:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I'm sure you've had enough of this

But I closed the TfD for the Iranian roads infoboxes as delete, but there were a few newer articles still using the old infobox: Bagheri Expressway, Sayyad Expressway, and Javaneh Expressway. I have no experience with the Roads project or these infoboxes, so can you convert those infoboxes? Thanks soooo much if you can find that time. fetch·comms 21:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I converted those. Ping me if there are any others. Imzadi 1979  21:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Road 82 (Iran), and that's the last one. Thanks so much again! fetch·comms 21:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I was already on it. Imzadi 1979  21:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Capitol Loop

As you requested, a little feedback.

  • The lead needs to maximise the proportion of readers who will keep reading the whole article. I'm afraid to say it's a little boring, grey, at the moment. It warms up in the second para, after all that bureaucratic stuff, which I would minimise. I'd highlight the notable, unique, interesting things about the Loop, and possibly reduce the size of the lead. Engage them within the first 10 seconds or you've lost half already.
  • As you know, I'm keen that the roads area of WP be more focused on internationalising readership and editorial effort. As well, non-experts should be catered for. So, I had to divert to the link for "reassurance marker", which is jargon, to learn what it means. Seems obvious in retrospect, but consider after the link: "... (regular reminders of the name and number of the highway) ...", or something like that. Should the link pipe be plural? Is "completely" necessary? Unique is unique. "has a unique system of reassurance markers – regular ....
  • The State Capitol, I guess, houses the state congress, does it?
  • "effected" ... not sure, should it be "affected"? (influenced). Effect can be a verb, but with specific meaning.
  • 'Tis rather overlinked. US, speed limit, etc. However, "speed trap" was over my personal boundary ... not as ubiquitous as "speed limit". Whatever you think.
  • I moved "run" into the "concurrently" pipe, so it's clearly not a dictionary link.
  • "conducted the latest of its annual surveys"—that will age; you lock yourself into remembering the maintenance requirement. Why not "an annual ..."?
  • I don't see the need for a non-breaking space between every number and its referent—might stretch the text if adjacent to an image. Units and values, etc, are fair enough, though.

Good work. I haven't read the history yet. Tony (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


My Dad lives right off the highway. Next time I head out that way, I'll try to remember my camera, although all I will be able to get is the US2 intersection. Regards,  Ed (talkmajestic titan) 09:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! That's more than I'd get visiting my parents in Negaunee whenever I get back up north. Imzadi 1979  09:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
No prob. Do you need anything else? I live in Iron River, and get to travel to Marquette in about two weeks to start my job and college. M-189, M-73, M-69, M-95, US-2, US-45 (if I get to visit my grandparents before I head off)?  Ed (talkmajestic titan) 09:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking through that list, M-69 could use some photos from its eastern segment. M-189 and M-73 have no photos at all. M-95 could use some road photos, as does US 45 and US 2. I'll be up north in a few weeks for my annual walk on the Mackinac Bridge, but I don't know how far north my trip will take me. Any photos you can snag are appreciated. Imzadi 1979  09:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I can't get the eastern end of M-69 because I'm not heading that way, but if I ever do I will. :-) I'll try for the others as soon as I can. What makes for a good road photo?  Ed (talkmajestic titan) 00:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, a good road photo has the road in it with some nice scenery or nice architecture in a more urbanized setting. It doesn't need to have a reassurance marker (the M-69, etc sign on the side of the road) but that is a plus for recognition. Obviously if the road is in a rough part of town, that doesn't make for a nice photo, but it does make for an honest depiction of the road. Basically a photo with the road in it somehow that's pleasing to the eye like any photo makes for a good road photo. Imzadi 1979  00:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. These roads don't run through "rough parts of town," luckily... unless all those trees and deer are gang members. ;-)  Ed (talkmajestic titan) 00:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, sometimes rough=less attractive. After what deer can do to a car, I think they might be part of some gang. Imzadi 1979  00:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
True, didn't take it that way. My grandparents once had a deer appear alongside their van then run in front of the car when they were going 40. Pure suicide (and one hell of a quick deer!).  Ed (talkmajestic titan) 00:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Texas infoboxes

I just got around to seeing your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas State Highways. New posts on that page don't happen very often, so I didn't catch it till now. I hope my two cents worth is helpful. Fortguy (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Speculative fiction

Just checking to make sure I've addressed all your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Speculative fiction. If so, please indicate there whether you support the portal being featured. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Forest Highway 16

RlevseTalk 18:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: My reaction to the deletion

My apologies if I stepped on any Wiki-toes, but as this is my first article deletion possibility, I guess I'm not as familiar with the protocol involved as the others are. Awtribute (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, just stay calm. Something to remember about Wikipedia, except in a few cases, articles can't be deleted for 7 days after they're tagged for deletion. If someone uses a CSD or "speedy deletion tag", you can tag it with {{hangon}} and start a discussion on the talk page. That stalls the "speedy". If they PROD (proposed deletion), you can simply contest that by removing the PROD tag with a reason for your edit summary. If they sent it to AfD, just comment at the discussion with a clear argument for inclusion. If someone else has given the same reasons, you can say "Keep per X and also for A and B reasons." (It's always best to have another reason or statement to go with a "per nom/per X" type comment.) Imzadi 1979  10:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanx for all your tips/help and stepping up for me, I appreciate it. I'm better now :D Awtribute (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Capitol Loop

My life has settled down a bit since you wrote asking me to take a look at Capitol Loop and I declined. Is it too late, or could I still be of some use? Finetooth (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's at FAC now. No, it's never too late to improve an article. It's only had the basics reviewed so far (sources, links, alt text) so it would be an opportune time to tweak the text now. Any help you can give it is appreciated. Imzadi 1979  20:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I did a bit of proofing and minor copyediting just now. If you disagree with any of my changes, please revert. I tried to go lightly but changed the internal sentence order in a few places. Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. The short version is that the article's history section was re-researched and rewritten. Our project is kinda quiet on the upper-tier articles while the stub-reduction drive and infobox consolidation and update drives are on-going. I appreciate any and all tweaking. It's my opinion that the article is solid in terms of sourcing, content, images/licenses, links, etc. I always get tenuous on prose quality, so tweak it away. I'll be online on and off most of the evening if you need any questions answered, but your help is appreciated. Imzadi 1979  00:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

M-189 images

Hi Imzadi, I got a few images of M-189 yesterday:

I got a couple through my windshield while driving too, but they didn't turn out well. Neither did my attempt to fit a rather large "Ski Brule" sign in with the road. I can upload them if you want. I'll get on the couple M-73 photos I took tomorrow. Regards,  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, there are six M-73 photos, beginning with File:M-73 (Michigan highway) 1.jpg. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see: Proposed Deletion: Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 15-17

Please see here: Wikipedia_talk:Service_awards#Proposed_Deletion:_Category:Wikipedian_Service_Award_Level_15-17 WuhWuzDat 10:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead Man's Curve in the U.P.

Just to be sure, I'm checking that the Making Michigan Move passage contains all of the information that the map that I used as a reference does (Google Books does not provide access to the relevant text in either the '80 or the '92 version): That the curve's name is Dead Man's Curve, that the location is confirmed as it is on the map, that there is a marker there, and that the CR-492 designation is identified. Mapsax (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ricketts Glen thanks

Ricketts Glen State Park F.L. Ricketts Falls 3.jpg Thanks again for your detailed image review. Ricketts Glen State Park made featured article today. Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Ricketts Glen State Park Canoes.jpg

Indian highway infoboxes

Now that the Indian highway infoboxes are to be deleted, there's a bit of work to do to convert them over to IBR. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Portal links

In reference to changing "any of the portal links on PR highway articles form Portal:Roads to Portal:U.S. Roads" this could had been addressed, but TwinMetsFan changed them all before I got a chance to respond! Since you follow TMF's talk page I suspect TMF may also follow yours. Well, you know, I have a life outside of wikipedia...patience, please! In any event, it is done.

Regretfully, our project would had prefered, for reasons that involve NPOV, that the The World Roads Portal stayed instead of pointing to the US Roads portal only, or as a (distant) compromise that, as you suggested, the US Roads portal had been added...and we could had lived happily ever after.

Can you help get The World Roads Portal back into those articles? Thanks.

(Fredddie: Thanks for letting me go on vacation! As you can see, you are high on my list to get PR highway articles out of that sink hole. Even came back with a vengance...which I am flattered to see has created quite a stir ! )

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.



Thank You Imzadi1979 for modifying all the India Road infobox -- naveenpf (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)