Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:52, 13 June 2008

Pages from before the merger:

Use of old-style shields

What do the members here think about a guideline for the use of old-style shields? I ask this because User:Freewayguy has been very vocal about his opposition to the Roads in Maryland Project's use of state-name Interstate shields, which are no longer officially in use by Maryland. He has even gone so far as to tag them for speedy deletion. We've been using them simply as an example of the older style; our project's shield guideline has never recommended that they be used in routeboxes etc. Since there isn't a guideline here, it would probably be a good idea to write one that says where they can be used so as to avoid any further confusion.-Jeff ^(talk) 03:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Freewayguy's unhealthy concern about state versus neutral shields, I don't really think it matters one way or another which shield is used. For decommissioned highways, it seems as if the convention is to use period shields where possible, but as you said, it's not written down anywhere. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article standards: reliable sources

There is a debate on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Interstate Highways as to whether a particular website is acceptable as a source or not. Any input is welcome. Bwrs (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedicity (sic) of junction lists

Some image issues recently raised at the FAC for NY 32 have got me to thinking: Do we really need to have detailed junction lists anywhere in the article at all? Either in the infobox or the main text. The more you think about it, the harder it is to justify overall:

How much of that is really trivial to begin with? Is the exact distance along the road to the tenth of a mile to each and every junction a notable aspect of the road? Is this not rather indiscriminate information?

As far as the table giving a list of the roads intersected and information about those intersections, can't that be done more easily in the prose route description? If you really look at it, they're redundant if the road description is written well.

What to include in these and what format to use have been the subject of a few disputes. Maybe that's because deep down inside we know these tables are unnecessary and superfluous.

There are any number of roadfan websites that could be linked to externally that provide the same information for someone who wants it.

Perhaps we should seriously consider whether this information we've all spent so much time gathering, sourcing and putting together is really, in the end, necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 There is a debate on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Interstate Highways]] as to whether [http://aaroads.com a particular website] is acceptable as a source or not.  Any input is welcome. [[User:Bwrs|Bwrs]] ([[User talk:Bwrs|talk]]) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
+== Encyclopedicity (sic) of junction lists ==
+Some image issues recently raised at the [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 32|FAC]] for [[New York State Route 32|NY 32]] have got me to thinking: Do we really need to have detailed junction lists anywhere in the article at all? Either in the infobox or the main text. The more you think about it, the harder it is to justify overall:
+* How much of that is really [[WP:TRIVIA|trivial]] to begin with? Is the exact distance along the road to the tenth of a mile to each and every junction a notable aspect of the road? Is this not rather [[WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE|indiscriminate information]]?
+* As far as the table giving a list of the roads intersected and information about those intersections, can't that be done more easily in the prose route description? If you really look at it, they're redundant if the road description is written well.
+* What to include in these and what format to use have been the subject of a few disputes. Maybe that's because deep down inside we know these tables are unnecessary and superfluous.
+* There are any number of roadfan websites that could be linked to externally that provide the same information for someone who wants it.
+Perhaps we should seriously consider whether this information we've all spent so much time gathering, sourcing and putting together is really, in the end, necessary. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)