Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads

Notice: This project page is under a restriction from the Arbitration Committee

A temporary injunction has passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2. The scope and approach of this project page should not be changed, and no disputed cases shall be added to or removed from USRD or subprojects, until the case is closed. Until the case closes, any uninvolved administrator who is neither a party to the case, nor a member of the WikiProject, may revert any change that modifies these pages or WikiProjects contentiously, and such a change should not be repeated. The injunction will expire on the date that the Arbitration case is closed and the final decision takes effect. At that time this notice may be removed by any editor. Posted by — Coren (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2.

Attention!

If you are here to post something about... notability, please do so on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability. Assessment and Importance, use WT:USRD/A. infoboxes and navigation, post on WT:USRD/INNA. shields, use WT:USRD/S. the exit list guide, use WT:ELG. the newsletter, post at WT:USRD/NEWS. state highways, Interstates, or U.S. Routes specifically, post at the respective WikiProject's talk page.

Disambigs

What is the general feeling about disambigs on articles such as Virginia State Route 7, where the disambig at the top of the page links to another current article? I don't feel they're useful and detract from the overall quality of the article. WP:DAB says that for DAB links, "at the top of an article, a note that links the reader to articles with similar titles or concepts that the reader may have been seeking instead of the article in which the links appear." I just don't think that the former routes (at least in Virginia) satisfy the criteria, and would be better off under the "See also" section. The last time I attempted to be bold it was reverted. Comments on this issue? How do other states handle it? --MPD ^{T / C} 03:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody with a document from between 1918 and 1923 that mentions SR 7 will end up at that article. The "see also" section is for related topics, not unrelated topics that have the same name. --NE2 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It belongs in a See Also section, not a DAB link. --Son (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It very clearly does not: "As noted above, disambiguation links should be placed at the top of an article. Bottom links are deprecated, since they are harder to find and easily missed. For alternatives that are related to the article but not a source of ambiguity, the "See also" section is more appropriate." These links are not usually related to the article, but are a source of ambiguity. --NE2 10:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

An example in a different field: Norfolk Southern Railway. Another one: PSA Airlines. In the other direction: Little Belt Bridge. Each of those examples has more in common than the current and former SR 7. --NE2 10:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Another example: Republic Airlines; some people want to find out some detailed history of Northwest Airlines, and Republic merged into nwa. NE2 is right in this case. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:49, 29 December 2007 (GMT)

Yeah, this is true; I struck my previous comment. I can see why it would be in a DAB. Just a note, I do think that the redirect link in the dab should point to the history section of VA Route 3. Also, does WP:USSH apply to former routes? As it is currently, the DAB link points to State Route 3 (Virginia 1918-1923). Shouldn't it be Virginia State Route 3 (1918-1923)? --Son (talk)

It's not clear, but it can be discussed over there to get some clarification. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:33, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

It's not clear, and I don't care either way (I've been using the California State Route x form recently on those); however, it should be a link that mentions State Route 7, and not what it redirects to (Virginia State Route 3 in this case), per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping ("a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link"). --NE2 16:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I misworded what I wanted to say. The redirect of State Route 7 (Virginia 1918-1923) should point to Virginia State Route 3#History (it already points to Virginia State Route 3). Then I asked if the name of redirect should be moved to Virginia State Route 7 (1918-1923) per WP:USSH; it's something I'm going to mention over at WT:USSH. --Son (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For the first part, I think it depends. I wouldn't redirect U.S. Route 666 to the history section of U.S. Route 491, but here it might make sense. I addressed the second part, saying that it really doesn't matter to me. --NE2 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Overall article structure - WP:CASH specific, but applies project-wide

Just this evening, I went and compared a few different articles on State Routes in Cali, and noticed the following potential for improvement; there seems to be no consensus ever reached on overall structure. For instance, the "State Law" section of each California State Route article. On some, it resides towards the bottom of the page. On others, it's been placed higher up. (Please see CA SR 1 and SR 99 for the differences.

In the interest of uniformity across the project, at least WP:CASH, what I'm proposing is this; A discussion to reach consensus on the article's section layout, or simply put, "what goes where". Edit Centric (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a state law section; anything relevant belongs in the infobox or introduction. --NE2 09:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Then there would be no need for templates like {{CAFESAlt}} and {{CAScenicAlt}}. In my opinion these are redundant also. — master son^{T - C} 18:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

These are needed as they specifically designate which routes are in the two classifications. The state law section should remain; this was discussed ages ago at WT:CASH. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussed, and highly controversial. :-D The general vibe I've gotten on Wikipedia as a whole is that short, stubbish chunks of sentences and sections are discouraged, and that such things should be translated into prose or relegated to footnotes. I don't think WP:USR people would have a problem with the situation as is, but it's sure to come up in any FAC discussion regarding WP:CASH articles. —Rob (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Put a parameter in the infobox for them(the template material). The section is blantantly redundant to the parameter in the infobox for the law. Rob brings up a good point. — master son^{T - C} 19:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of linking to the law, why not just quote it, like on Utah State Route 32? That way it's less of a stubbish section.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the point? We already have all the information that's in it, and we say it in our own words. --NE2 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that needs to be quoted word-for-word. It's a source (and an important one) but the only reason for quoting/identifying the law I can think of is in comparing it (or contrasting it) with the modern-day route. And even then, any changes to the route would ideally require a second source. —Rob (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(MARGIN RESET) Hmm. I think you've all missed the point that I was trying to make. This discussion skewed and got hung up on the ONE SECTION, what I was proposing was a much broader brush-stroke, in discussing overall article layout, and specifying a mapping out of the sections (ie: First goes the infobox, then the description, then the history, then the exit list, yada yada yada.) Let's wait until the ArbCom case is over though, as that seems to be where most heads are at right now, and I don't blame anyone for that. All the revert warring, bypassing consensus, nose-thumbing and such is starting to get a little old... Edit Centric (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we already have something similar to that at WP:USRD/MOS. I think it's linked somewhere on the main page but it should go in the green box somewhere probably. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

it is in the "green box" *cough* the link that is ;)  — master son^{T - C} 12:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. :P —Idiot5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Master_son - the only thing of some note is that the history and route description section order is somewhat negotiable. I can't quite find the diff where that was mentioned, but I didn't come up with it out of thin air. :-) —Rob (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Articles" section on WP:USRD

Why is this page protected?

Anyways, I was going to remove the "Articles" section on WP:USRD because if I wanted a portal, I'd go to P:USRD. Or I would only keep the links to the categories for each class. —Rob (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

An edit war came up. You could probably go to WP:RPP to get it unprotected - I'd do it myself but I already took crap for protecting it (see my talk...) --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It also protects the page from an editor from disrupting the page while (yet another) RFC goes on. Thanks Rschen. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protection was lifted by the order of the Arbitration Committee. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please add

• American Geographical Society Library Digital Map Collection

to the "Historic maps and routings" section. Thank you. --NE2 09:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protection has been lifted. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging current SHs with former routes

I noticed NE2 merged New Mexico State Road 333 into U.S. Route 66 in New Mexico. I understand why he did this, being essentially the same road and all, but I think that we should put more emphasis on the current route, considering U.S. 66 has been decommissioned. (He once attempted merging Oklahoma State Highway 66 into the respective U.S. 66 article but we managed to resolve that.) NM-333 has termini different from that of U.S. 66 in NM and probably a little bit of history of its own as well. I'd like to know what others think about this merge. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If a merge is to happen - it should be the other way around - with a mention of what the route was in the history. However this make more sense here - seeing that most of the old road was replaced with I-40 (through the mountains it was most efficient to build the Interstate on the same right of way as the old route) I favor this move.  — master son^{T - C} 21:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion debate I-605 (Washington)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 605 (Washington). --Polaron | Talk 19:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does Category:U.S. Roads project maps task force articles exist?

This is just a list of every article that has a map, and doesn't seem useful. --NE2 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

References for geographical features

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#References for geographical features on the use of references for geographical information, for example with road descriptions. Comments would be appreciated. --Para (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

I propose the creation of a subpage of USRD to list all our articles that made DYK. Any thoughts? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out WP:USRD/DYK. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming myself back

Please take this as my welcoming you back. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 01:03, 10 January 2008 (GMT)

Given that WP:USRD is back in arbitration, I have decided to return to Wikipedia. That being said, I do not plan on participating in the arbitration case, since while I've had past dealings with NE2 (both positive and negative), I am blissfully unaware of what has gone on in my absense and what led directly to the case. Rather, while the rest of you folks participate in the arbitration case, I plan on picking up the pieces you've left behind. I will follow whatever guidelines have been determined with regards to junction lists and the like in my absense, and the last thing I want to do is reopen any sore wounds. In fact, the reason I have returned is to make sure old wounds stay closed, and to stop any more wounds from opening in the future.

I don't know how often I'll be on here, and due to various constraints I will not be on IRC, so I make no promises on what I will do or when I will do it. I just figured that you might like to know that I'm around keeping an eye on the proceedings. -- NORTH ^talk 09:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to have you back. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Northenglish. Its been a long time since I've seen you here. It certainly was a surprise.^Mitch32^contribs 14:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

NORTH!!!!!!!!!!!! --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you around mate! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, NORTH! Don't leave again! --Son (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Utah project promotion

I am proposing the repromotion of the project at WT:USRD/SUB. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Major cities box

Can we please find a way to do away with the major cities boxes? They prevent adding images to the route description section... like on U.S. Route 59, where I had to add the image very far down the page in a section it doesn't really fit well with. I think it's a problem.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The only conceivable way would be to merge them into {{infobox road}}; however, that really doesn't fix the problem because the long single infobox would still mess up image placement. On a related note, I'd like to consolidate the WP:NYSR community boxes into {{infobox road}}; however, the "cities=" parameter doesn't work for this purpose since nine times out of ten the locations listed in the box aren't cities, much less major cities (which is what the resulting row reads). --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just throw the list out the window down into the street below, and run it over with several cars and a tricycle. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear God, that's a long list of cities. I wouldn't be opposed to eliminating it for sizes > 10. (I still insist the concept holds some value, but agree it needs to be balanced with readability.) —Rob (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For a similarly appalling list, see U.S. Route 70. I pared that one down by a lot, I think to cities of 10,000 pop or greater, but the route is so long there's a ton of those. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been removing them as I include the information elsewhere, such as U.S. Route 1. In most cases, the major cities should be the junctions in the infobox. --NE2 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

hmm - I'd be concerned about some people thinking that the major cities must be listed somewhere, but I agree with NE2's philosophy here, the list is redundant (whether separate or in the infobox) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master son (talk • contribs) 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like most of the articles that have problems with this have individual state articles. Maybe that information could be removed from the general article, and moved to the more specific state articles, where the lists will be shorter. Either that or just eliminate the list completely. - Algorerhythms (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the major cities or Communities box (see Pennsylvania Route 39) just redundant to the major junctions guide/ELG or the route description? I'd advocate getting rid of both the major cities and communities boxes because of redundancy. --Son (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It is rather redundant. I'd be fine with just getting rid of the city list boxes. - Algorerhythms (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Let us remember that the cities box was created to eliminate a long section with a bunch of whitespace. However, this was made for Interstates so we could better organize the article information. For US routes, I'll support eliminating the box. For Interstate highways, I do not support such a removal. I pioneered that box for Interstates, not US routes. Adding "major cities" to the state-by-state (if the case may be) sections of the US routes makes more sense. --MPD ^{T / C} 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the box makes more sense for Interstates, because those have well-defined control cities, so the box doesn't have too many entries. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise. For main interstate articles, have a list of the control cities, and only have major city lists on state-by-state articles so that they're more manageable. -- NORTH ^talk 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is still problematic; for instance on Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania we'll have a lot of rather minor places, but on others we'll have two major cities, neither of which is in the state. Are control cities really encyclopedic anyway, when they depend much more on the state's wishes than what's actually a major city? --NE2 20:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How about we Hard limit to control cities only on the Interstates.  — master son^{T - C} 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: this would be true for State Detail - for overall pages (that have state-details) eliminate them altogether.  — master son^{T - C} 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, we'll have to use discretion. Control cities IMO are encyclopaedic. But for example, on I-66 we have Washington (DC) and Strasburg, but Front Royal is also listed on signage, so that would be included but not bolded, per the box. Three cities is no big deal. I think most Interstates are fine as they are. I suggest we focus on one thing right now: the use of the cities box in US routes, get that resolved, and then we can work on Interstates. Deal? --MPD ^{T / C} 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: even though I suggested saving this for later, an overall box on the main article is necessary (I like to see everything total-route-specific on one page. But state-detail articles would include more "major" cities. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually what I'm saying applies to control cities - Pennsylvania has ten relatively small official control cities on I-80, while New Jersey has none (unless you count Delaware Water Gap) and Illinois has only one (Chicago, which isn't actually on I-80). --NE2 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But they're still defined as control cities by AASHTO. It's not our place to make value judgments on control cities. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This whole thread is making value judgments on the major cities box, and we can certainly decide whether to use it for control cities or not. --NE2 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur that we are making value judgements here. If there are no cities on a S-D page for interstates because of the lack of control cities, so be it.  — master son^{T - C} 22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

←Well, I mean, we can't just randomly start throwing out certain control cities because we don't feel they're important enough. If we decide we want to do away with control cities all together, that's a different matter. I support retaining control cities, because we have a citeable document where an external organization has blessed certain towns as Important. So the matter as to what's in, what's out is settled for us.

Major cities boxes on U.S. routes are another matter entirely, because there's no document we can use as our criteria for inclusion. We need to set a bar for how important must a city be to be included in the box. Unfortunately, a uniform bar may not work, because if you set it too low, very long routes may have huge boxes like U.S. 70. But if you set it high enough to be comfortable for U.S. 70, then shorter routes or those that run through sparser areas of the country like Utah or so may end up having no eligible cities at all. So then you end up getting rules like if the route is over x miles long you have major cities be over y population. And then that's just more bureaucratic rules that newbies will get wrong and bristle at memorizing, and may even prove unwieldy for regular editors. So that's why I feel we should ditch the box on U.S. routes and keep it on Interstates. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC) And don't say TLDR, or the cutout shield gets it, lol!

So here's an idea. Why not some simple solution like what we have with the intersection list in the infobox? The ten most major cities go on the list. -- NORTH ^talk 00:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of those cities are hopefully in the infobox, making the city list kind of redundant. --NE2 00:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The organization hasn't really "blessed" those towns as important; it's taken requests from the state, and - at least in the case of I-80 in Pennsylvania - rubber-stamped them. Control cities are also not always intended to be important towns, but sometimes simply junctions. And some are other roads, like I-84 on western I-86 (eastern I-86 is too new for us to have information) and I-15 on I-70. Control cities are simply inconsistent between states, and not even always followed by the states (see the green entries in [1]). --NE2 00:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But a DOT still had to pick that city for submission to AASHTO...and how do you know that it was simply rubber-stamped? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Somehow the lists on state routes were lost in this discussion, even though they're cut from the same cloth as the USH lists. I guess my only concern is that if a location wasn't mentioned in the list, it wouldn't be mentioned anywhere. So I suppose it would be redundant if everything was covered in the route description and the most major of the locations had infobox junctions; this applies to both state routes and USH. Keep in mind that the sole reason they exist (from what I understand) is purely historical; they replaced sections that were devoted to lists. (I think this is still an issue in some states like Tennessee, so to me this discussion should have some bearing on these sections - but we'll kill one bird with one stone first.) However, I believe that the IH lists are better off kept for the control cities, which have to meet a specific criteria (the FHWA list) to be included. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an AASHTO list, which underscores the fact that they're generally up to the states. We don't even have an updated list; the one we use is from 2001 (and is probably technically a copyright violation, so could go down at any time). --NE2 01:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I'd point out that NCDOT links to that same list. --MPD ^{T / C} 01:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that there's a set list, regardless of who makes it. On another note, I find it surprising that DOTs link to that list instead of something that some people here would consider more official. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh... that's pretty weird. I guess the only alternative would be having it scanned on their intranet, since AASHTO doesn't have it online. --NE2 01:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly can't really see the Control Cities being on the articles now if they're not properly sourced.  — master son^{T - C} 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

They are sourced: The 2001 edition of List of Control Cities for Use in Guide Signs on Interstate Highways, which is published by AASHTO in a larger text. Someone was nice enough to put it online; it's no different than citing a book. --MPD ^{T / C} 04:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's Guidelines for the Selection of Supplemental Guide Signs for Traffic Generators Adjacent to Freeways, 4th Edition, Single User Digital Publication. I'm in the process of obtaining it now. --MPD ^{T / C} 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have it. Here's proof. I'm afraid to make copies of it. That adelphia list is correct, as far as I can see. --MPD ^{T / C} 04:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

MoDOT has a copy of the control cities for the interstates that pass through Missouri at their Engineering Policy wiki. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(IR) Copyrighted eh? I hate it when that happens :P It will work - a newer version would be grand for sure. If it can't be copied, we'll have to do the best we can  — master son^{T - C} 15:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If the FHWA has an identical copy of the list under their own banner, it wouldn't be subject to copyright, being an entity of the federal government and all. :-) —Rob (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, time to get back on track. We have three issues: 1) Shall we throw out control cities? 2) Shall we throw out major cities boxes on U.S. routes or find a way to restrict them? 3) What about state routes? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If control cities are worth mentioning, we can mention them in the text. In fact, on something like I-80 in Pennsylvania, it might be better to mention them with a sentence about how there are no major cities on I-80. --NE2 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How exactly would you propose doing that? Control cities are probably not conducive to being written about in prose form, so we'd probably have to go back to the bulleted list in its own section. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Most routes only have a few. In the case of I-80, something like "I-80 serves sparsely populated areas of northern Pennsylvania, yet has been assigned many control cities: Sharon, Du Bois, ..." --NE2 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose that. I honestly don't think we'll get consensus on the Interstates, so I think we should focus on the US and state routes at the moment and get those out of the way. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Well, I haven't really seen any objection to the idea of removing the box for U.S. routes, so...speak now or hold your peace for a few months or so I guess? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CACR

I am proposing the demotion of this project at WT:USRD/SUB. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

New Jersey Route 18

I wasn't sure whether to take this to the Assessment subproject, or Peer review, plus I wanted it to reach a somewhat larger audience, so here it lies.

I'm somewhat disappointed that the article was passed as a Good Article during my absence. It was expanded, and deservedly so, but a lot of the concerns I raised when it was first nominated were never addressed. As my first action back, I've now belatedly addressed them.

Also, during the most recent nomination, the reviewer (not a member of USRD as far as I know) promoted the article to A-class. After I'd already started posting this message, I noticed that Mitchazenia demoted it back to B-class, then to GA-class once it passed. Nevertheless, I'd like to see it go through the proper assessment procedure by someone knowledgeable about our criteria (i.e. not me). Who knows, maybe it is A-class? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northenglish (talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I suppose I'm a bit rusty with my posting skills. :-) -- NORTH ^talk 15:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

List it as an A Class Review - follow the instructions noted on the page in the link.  — master son^{T - C} 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good plan. Done. -- NORTH ^talk 18:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the GA review process isn't the best thing in the world. I've found it to be wildly inconsistent, whether it be for the time it takes (sometimes it's a week, others a few months) or the standards of the reviewer. I've seen a lot of articles passed lately that I personally wouldn't consider Good Articles. OTOH, our ACR process is pretty solid. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We have a situation on Button copy

Please do comment at its talk page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Parkway/Beaver Island Parkway --NE2 21:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Another deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 4 (Monmouth County, New Jersey) --^Mitch32^contribs 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment presently transcludes the standard assessment table, which allows missing elements in a B-class article. It's been my understanding and that of others that a missing or incomplete section automatically makes it start or stub. We need to decide how we're going to reconcile this. I'm not sure about others, but I think it's useful to have a class that shows that articles are basically complete except for possibly more details, without having to use a slow process like GA. It might also work if we added a parameter to the infobox that would categorize U.S. road GA candidates together so we can get them through faster, though we'd have to ensure that we apply the criteria fairly. What are others' thoughts? --NE2 03:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As it is, we basically use B-class as complete, though possibly missing some fine details that would be required for upper-half assessment classes. B-class articles need a route description, jctlist, and history. Start-class is missing one of those sections (or there's significant problems, like being written "backwards" or being written so badly as to require a total rewrite), while stub class article usually lacks both jctlist and history.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We will need to determine what "complete" means here - I would suggest it have a minimum of clear detailed route description, a basic history that points out the obvious pieces of it, a junction list (ELG version or {{jctint}} built depending on the structure), and proper sourcing in all of these (source a map or route log for the route description, standard history media (articles, DOT records, maps, collections, etc) for the history section, source a route log for mileage/exit numbers in the junction/exit list. My feeling is if you got as much as you can from online, its a B - to achieve GA or better - you'll have to visit the local museum or library or get premium sources (pay-per-link for example).  — master son^{T - C} 04:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to clear out every article that should be a start class here. I'm only clearing out what is obviously not a B class. If it is missing one of the "big three" (even if there is only one sentence, it still counts as a section) I've removed it. If somebody wants to go through and enforce the definition, removing more articles, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I believe that NE2 is reading into the table too much, as the "gaps" don't mean that entire sections are missing - that's too much. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What else would "missing elements" be? --NE2 04:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a section isn't quite finished? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that would be "missing". --NE2 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a missing element of the article. Do I need to define what an element is? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I read that as a section being an element. --NE2 04:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(in rs) The problem with your assertion is that an article with a complete route description, no history, and no junction list would be a B class article. An article with an complete route description, an incomplete history, and a complete junction list would be a start class article.

By the way, I believe B+ is a good idea. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How would that be true? If it can have a missing section it can certainly have an incomplete section. I think the only possible problem with B+ is that the bot doesn't really handle it well, so we have to also include it in either B or GA. --NE2 05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But that goes against your CASH reverts earlier, when you reverted some routes with incomplete histories. I'll test a B+ assessment tonight and see what happens to it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Those were based on what I understood to be the criteria. Then I was told to read them, and I realized we were all wrong. --NE2 05:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You still have not proved that we were wrong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Who cares who was wrong? Your comments aren't getting us anywhere. --NE2 05:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not proven that your interpretation of the table and "missing elements" is correct. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? Are you so personally invested in proving me wrong that you're going to keep hounding me about it? --NE2 05:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) No, I honestly disagree with your interpretation of this. Please AGF. The issue here is that if a section is incomplete, one should consider it as a B. But if a section is entirely missing, it should be a start class. If you were writing an article on George Washington and left out the Revolutionary War section, would it be a B class? No. If you were writing an article on United States and you left out the transportation section, would it be a B class? No. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:B-Class country articles has many without a transportation section, for instance Austria and Paraguay. --NE2 05:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a surprising amount of information online these days, at least in some states. --NE2 04:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do snatch it all, and that includes summarizing sites that have reliable sources, like [[2]] or [[3]]. Sure they're not perfect - so I'll go and attempt to prove it on the newspaper archive, then use my discretion (in other words - leave it out.) The problem is - when is enough enough?

By the way, I'm proposing that we adopt "clarifying language" on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment that explains how complete B-class needs to be. We just need to agree on this; I'm in favor of specifying that it must have a complete route description, touch on all important aspects of the history (for instance when it became a state highway, when it was opened if it wasn't an existing road, etc.), and have a complete junction list or equivalent if applicable. Either that or streamlining the GA process for USRD articles; I haven't been listing much there because it takes so long. --NE2 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that proposal there.  — master son^{T - C} 04:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Which one - clarifying or streamlining GA? --NE2 04:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

CLARIFY: the first part - about the complete route desc, history as stated in your proposal, and junction list that has all I, US, Major State and key minor state/county/etc (access to municipalities)  — master son^{T - C} 04:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

oops - edit conflict - maybe I'll think ahead next time ;)  — master son^{T - C} 04:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with NE2's proposal to define what B-class is and also with the listed criteria. If B+ articles get sorted into the GA category, we might want to use that as our own USRD-wide GA discussion. I think most of us here are neutral enough to judge a road article without bias. We can then use B+ for higher-end B-class articles which might add additional requirements as more readable prose, well-referenced history, etc. --Polaron | Talk 05:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I ran a test, and, as I suspected, "Bplus" is not recognized by the bot. WP Math does it by putting them in both the B+ and GA categories (see for instance Talk:Ackermann function); I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Different assessment definitions if this is how it is supposed to be. --NE2 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If we put the B+ cat under the B cat, it would still read, and we could still tell what was B+ and B. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that doesn't work; it doesn't recognize the subcategory. --NE2 05:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You sure? I just reran it and it worked... --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/California road transport articles by quality log it's removed. --NE2 05:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. What about a paramenter for {{USRD}}? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

All we'd have to do is make it put B+ in the right category (apparently GA if math is doing it correctly). --NE2 05:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Proposal 1: B-Class is an article with a decent (at least 50-75% of the information to make an adequate article) Route description, History, and some form of junction list. B+ class is articles that could go to GA (similar to how A class is to FA).
• Proposal 2: B-Class is an article with complete Route description, History, and some form of junction list. However, if a section is missing, it would still be B class. B+ class would have all 3 sections.

Please indicate what you support below. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal 1 - status quo, and Start class is for an article missing major sections. Otherwise, what would Start class be for? Quoting from Start Class - "For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture." --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you put "decent route description" for 1 but "complete route description" for 2. And wasn't the point of adding B+ that we'd be using the default criteria for B? Or would we still be clarifying all the classes? I don't think I agree with either of those proposals; something with one sentence of "decent" description, one sentence of history, and a junction list shouldn't usually be B, but on the other hand does M-185 really need a junction list? Does Southern California freeways need a standard route description? Why are we polling anyway? We had a decent discussion going. --NE2 06:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspected I didn't fully understand your position. Apparently that was correct. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a position per se. I was using something stricter than both proposals, with a complete route description and a relatively complete history, but was reverted in the case of State Route 15 and told to read the criteria. I did, but didn't see how they specified what anyone was using. So I took it here in the hope that we'd be able to decide whether we want to be stricter than the standard. --NE2 06:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So your position is that the standards are too vague right now? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you insist that everyone must have a position on everything at all times, yes. --NE2 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Messing around with the assessment criteria is a colossal waste of time. Just leave it the way it is. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Snow Support - because its snowing outside - and polls really don't solve much.  — master son^{T - C} 14:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep. This is definitely the least of anyone's concerns... --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Proposal 1 would remain status quo, and we could strip out the B+... --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So are people actually going to go through all the B-class articles and assess them for B+? --NE2 23:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we just close this poll and say that we're going to just clarify everything? (needs all 3 sections, decent size for B, and no B+)? If B+ gets added by the bot I don't have a problem with adding it later. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What would California State Route 15 fall under then? With such a short history I can only see it being B if we have a B+ or work on getting GAs through more quickly. --NE2 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

B since it has the three sections... and that is irrelevant to whether we have a B+ or get GAs through more quickly. Start is for articles missing 1 section, Stub is for articles missing 2 or more. (You say you have no opinion about the matter, and now you're opposing this...) --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that we need some way to separate articles with very short sections from fully-fleshed-out articles. --NE2 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we all know what the difference between a short section and a more complete one is. We already have enough guidelines and criteria and general crap in the project subpages, do we really need this too? By saying "complete" when I posted to your talk page about the B-class criteria, I meant reasonably complete, as in not just a sentence stating when it was commissioned. I didn't mean it was complete to the point that there was nothing else to add to it. Read WP:WIP. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we have to define what complete is; I'm saying that we should have a class that shows that everything is mostly complete. SR 15 isn't there. --NE2 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's A-Class... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A requires a good deal of process, and is "almost-FA". I'm thinking of "almost-GA". --NE2 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend just giving the article in question the little bit of extra oomph to get it to GA. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we set up something so we don't have to wait a month for a GA reviewer to get around to the article? --NE2 00:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that sitting in queue for a month is frustrating, but there's not really anything that we can do about it, other than pitching in and reviewing articles to clear the backlogs. (I do think that might be something you might be good at, NE2.) WikiProjects approving articles as GA in-house is discouraged at WP:Reviewing good articles. I really don't want to add any more classes unless you could persuade WP1.0 to adopt it as an official class so that the bot can handle it like normal. Having oddball classes also makes it harder to compare how USRD is doing to other projects and Wikipedia in general. (Which is actually the original reason I invented the WikiWork stats. Please note that merely because I mentioned WikiWork doesn't mean that I have a hidden agenda to prevent the creation of a new class because it would be bad for WikiWork or something like that.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) As suggested, I reviewed (and failed) three GA nominations. Now come the angry messages... --NE2 01:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You're supposed to do a writeup, not just fail it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

On the talk page? --NE2 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and more than the one sentence - you have to examine the whole article. Also, for something as minor as finding one source, you place a hold on it; you don't fail it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did. --NE2 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you have to go through the GA criteria and say where it is good and where it is not. Furthermore, you don;t fail an article over RS; you place a hold and wait 7 days. If it still is not reliably sourced then, that is when you fail it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"The process of promoting Good Articles is intentionally unbureaucratic." --NE2 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There, or on a subpage of your userpage -- that's what I've seen done on prior GAN's. A writeup typically includes every section detailed out, the reasons why it was declined, what needs to be done, etc. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Reviewers should ... probably avoid reviewing articles that belong to WikiProjects they are active members of." So says WP:Reviewing good articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Because they're likely to be biased. I don't believe my reviews were biased; in fact I know more about what's a reliable source for highways than the average non-USRD reviewer. --NE2 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So you are an exception to the rule? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm an exception to the guideline that says "probably", yes. Add that to your arbcom evidence. --NE2 02:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I agree that the assessment definitions need to be clarified. I would have to disagree, however, on how stubs would be missing two or more sections. A stub, in my view, would be an article with only one section of readable prose. Start would have sections of readable prose, but be widely incomplete, i.e. have a decent route description and incomplete history, or vice versa. B would be an essentially complete article of readable prose, and have an exit/junction list following. The aforementioned classes could be fairly disorganised; GA (and maybe B) starts to organise the article. This is my rant for now. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:55, 17 January 2008 (GMT)

As for SR 15, it's borderline; it can go either way, depending on how one looks at it. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:02, 18 January 2008 (GMT)

I mostly agree with you here. By "essentially complete", I assume you mean all the major topics are addressed. Looking back, I think that's how we arrived at the Big 3 sections being required for B-Class, as those three sections are a good rule of thumb for the major topics of any article, though of course if a route is widely known as being a planned future Interstate, it should have a future section to be B-Class. But for most articles, a future section isn't appropriate. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)