Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Interstate Highways

Archives
1 2 3

Template:3di

Template:3di (the 3di spur navboxes) may appear broken for a short time, as the changes to the template proposed and agreed on long ago are in the process of being implemented. Your patience is appreciated. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know and finally taking care of that. -- NORTH ^talk 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I got all of the 3di templates updated, so we should be good to go. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye

Hello Fellow Wikipedians!
I have enjoyed my time editing here on Wikipedia but I feel it is time to move on. I have done cleanup on some pages and other edits here but I feel it is time to start my own website for roads, I will post the link when it goes live. I have removed a chunck of articles from my watchlist and will begin to make a steady transition out. My subsequent edits will be more for matience and/or minor information changes. I have no hard feelings towards this project but I feel its time to move on. I am not leaving Wikipedia, just this project as it would not be appropriate for me to do this in addition to my future website. Thank you all for the wonderful time I had here! If there is anything you all want help with or want my opinion on, just let me know!
All the best!
Jgcarter 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
PS- You can help me out by using my website for citations!

Interstate 14 and Interstate 3

Would anyone have any objections to moving the article to "14th Amendment Highway"? Right from the FHWA [1], there's no future I-14 corridor designation yet, even here on that map. I think it would be better as 14th Amendment Highway for now. --MPD ^{T / C} 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking around some more, I-3 is in the same position as I-14. So also moving Interstate 3 to "Third Infantry Division Highway" could be in order, because neither of them have been designated as future Interstate corridors. --MPD ^{T / C} 18:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I-14 is the common name: [2] [3] --NE2 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair though, of "Interstate 14" search, on the first page, only three of those are about the Interstate 14 we're referring to, two are about an already existing Interstate 14 in California which isn't correct, and the rest are about movie theatres (Regal Interstate 14) or mistakes (...interstate. 14...). On the second page, only three again are about Interstate 14. That's not to say how many of the articles are duplicates of other articles.

Even so, I'm not saying it's not a common name (there's the "Stop I-3" group), I'm just saying it's speculative and not official. I don't mind leaving them as is; just a thought though that it would be a better name for the article because of the speculation all around on the numbering of the highway. --MPD ^{T / C} 18:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that, but "14th Amendment Highway" only gives three relevant results total, and one also uses "I-14". People are actually calling it I-14, not the "14th Amendment Highway". --NE2 18:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, keep the current titles, for consistency reasons as well.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think consistency is a valid reason, since these aren't Interstates. But "Interstate 14" is the name people are using. --NE2 19:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was meaning. Obviously people aren't really referring to US 6 as "Grand Army of the Republic Highway" that much, and it's the same case with I-14 and 3.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer retaining the common names and having the other names you mention redirecting to the pages. --Mhking 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 238

This has been moved from Talk:Interstate 238.

Given this runs between a 580 and an 880, and was assigned 238 because CalTrans did not have space in the x80 range, and is generally considered to be anomalously numbered contrary to the usual rules, that logically would suggest its de facto parent would be I-80, no? Chris cheese whine 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have a parent defacto or otherwise. True 80 would have been its parent in a perfect world, but it's well documented from many sources [4][5][6][7][8] that it technically doesn't have an existing parent until an I-38 comes about. Gateman1997 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are (in order), 404, 404, a personal home page, and 404. You can't argue that it doesn't have a parent purely based on its number. The statements from AASHTO and CalTrans suggest with very little doubt that it is part of the x80 family. Chris cheese whine 21:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the dead links. All 4 support my position on the matter. Also I'd like to see any evidence you have that says explicitly that AASHTO or Caltrans consider it a child of 80. I can find no such evidence. Gateman1997 08:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also found this on the Caltrans site. [9]. You'll notice that Caltrans links to at least one site, AA Roads from link 1, that supports my view. Gateman1997 09:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RTFA. Chris cheese whine 17:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

238 is a family of its own. It is not related to I-80. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A fine opinion, but what definitive source do you have to support this viewpoint. AASHTO and Caltrans are pretty definitive. -- KelleyCook 18:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And the links are where? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't make me take screenshots. RTFA. Chris cheese whine 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The source SPUI gave does not support your view. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In much the same way that my locak bus timetable doesn't support that view. The source above is a list, and gives no indication of parentage. Chris cheese whine 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So where are your sources? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The quotes in the article beg to differ. AASHTO > you. Chris cheese whine 18:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I just re-read the above comments. AARoads is a site run by a couple of roadgeeks. Why are they apparently a greater authority than the memos from the California DOT and AASHTO on the page? Chris cheese whine 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

They wouldn't be if AASHTO and Caltrans actually had a position on the matter but I can't find any such position beyond AASHTO objecting to the numbering because it violates the numbering system (because 238 isn't a child of 80), and Caltrans not even acknowledging it being an interstate on many of their lists and still referring to it as SR 238 including its exit numbering on CAL NEXUS. However AARoads is provided as BY CALTRANS as a reliable source of information. I'd like to see this evidence you claim to have that AASHTO and Caltrans consider it a child of 80. Because the 238 article shows that the major objection AASHTO had to Caltrans numbering it that way was that 238 is NOT a child of 80, which is why they suggested it be numbered as an 80 child. Gateman1997 19:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) To address your non-points:

AASHTO objecting to the numbering because it violates the numbering system (because 238 isn't a child of 80). No, their objection actually suggests the exact opposite, that it is a child of 80 (hence them suggesting alternatives to give it an x80 designation).

However AARoads is provided as BY CALTRANS as a reliable source of information. No, it is provided by a pair of road enthusiasts, and therefore not a reliable source of information.

I'd like to see this evidence you claim to have that AASHTO and Caltrans consider it a child of 80. IT'S IN THE ARTICLE. AASHTO suggest an x80 numbering, therefore they believe it is an auxiliary to 80. CalTrans say "We'd like to, but can't", therefore evidently they also believed it to be an auxiliary to 80. Then there's the insignificant fact of its endpoints being on 580 and 880. All the reliable evidence points to it being part of the x80 family. Saying that it isn't purely on the basis of the number is like saying a woman is not related to her parents because she married and took her husband's name. It's utter nonsense. Chris cheese whine 19:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

All AASHTO implies there is that is SHOULD have been a child of 80. They objected to the numbering because by using 238 it isn't a child of 80 and thus violates the numbering scheme. Gateman1997 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it implies that it IS a child of 80, and SHOULD have been numbered x80. Chris cheese whine 19:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You're making a jump of logic that's just not there. They would not have objected if it were actually a child of 80. However because it isn't they objected. But if you have ANY evidence other then RTFA please provide it. I've given at least one Caltrans endorsed link that supports my view and 3 roadgeek ones that also do. Gateman1997 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed, and the wrong way around. They objected because the proposed number did not fit. They saw it as a child of 80, wanted it to have an x80 number, and suggested alternative solutions that would have given it an x80 number. It is logically impossible to reach your conclusion from the statement on this page. Chris cheese whine 20:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is by far the worst thing I've seen since WP:SRNC. It's a poll started by one person, clearly originally written to support his views, and still being edited to support his views, with options being struck through despite his own rules: "Feel free to add alternative options, but do not remove any. There's faulty logic on both sides. One is trying to define I-238 as not a member of the I-80 family solely by its number – the sources being used to do so are somewhat questionable, but it is supported by AASHTO's numbering rules. The other side (which as the "poll" below shows is comprised of one person) is trying to define it as a member based solely on its termini, which is somewhat supported by AASHTO's quotes, but by this logic Interstate 287 would be a member of the I-95 family.

The article as it's written right now does not explicitly state that I-238 is not a member of the I-80 family. Anything added to the article stating that it is (or isn't) would need to be sourced (since it's obviously questionable). The claim that IT'S IN THE ARTICLE isn't enough; that would be an original research leap of faith. -- NORTH ^talk 22:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Facts

m:Polls are evil, but I think it's important that we stop and ensure that we are all on the same page, and looking at the same reality here, so let's step back, ignore each other's opinions, and examine the substantive facts of the matter. Numbered statements in this section should be simple statements, or logical extensions thereof. Feel free to add alternative options, but do not remove any. Any combination of facts must state its derivation. If you oppose any suggested interpretation, you must state why you oppose. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The endpoints of the road are junctions with I-580 and I-880, near the San Francisco Bay Area.

• Support. Chris cheese whine 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose- be more specific. CA-238 does not have those terminii but I-238 does. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per rschen.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1.1. The endpoints of the stretch of road documented in this article are junctions with I-580 and I-880, near the San Francisco Bay Area.

• Support. Chris cheese whine 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Partially oppose, actually the end point in the physical east/road south is at SR 238 and I 580. Gateman1997 21:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC
  • That would be a junction with I-580, just as the statement suggests, then ... Chris cheese whine 21:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose how may x80s were there available when Caltrans made the choice? Also - A road is a road is a road is a road. -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1.2. The endpoints of the stretch of road documented in this article are junctions with what are now I-580 and I-880, near the San Francisco Bay Area.

Adopted - no further comment on this particular one. Enough arguing over technicalities, we know which 2-mile piece of road we're looking at. Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

2. The numbering of I-238 is non-standard.

Adopted - clear agreement on this one. Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The standard is prefixing the number of a route to which it is related. Chris cheese whine 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support because the number comes from a CASR. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support per rschen.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support because the number comes from CASR and my provided evidence. Gateman1997 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support based on the rules of Interstate system -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Following (2), the number I-238 would imply a spur of I-38, which does not exist.

Adopted Chris cheese whine 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Chris cheese whine 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. but see notes above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support per rschen.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support per my statements above. Gateman1997 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

4. The road is a little over 2 miles long.

Adopted - as with 1.2, it's clear which stretch of road we're dealing with. Chris cheese whine 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - definitely looks that way to me. Chris cheese whine 20:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Supoort conditionally. I-238 is a little over 2 miles long. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support per all.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support conditionally per Rschen. Gateman1997 21:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

5. Following (1) and (4), the road is part of the I-80 system.

Rejected Chris cheese whine 21:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - ignore the number, and it fits. Chris cheese whine 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose faulty premise. Citing I-105, where a route does not have to meet its parent to be a spur, --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not faulty, and the case you cite supports this interpretation, as I-238 does not directly meet I-80 either. Chris cheese whine 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose also citing Interstate 370.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This opinion seems to be confused for precisely the same reason as above. Chris cheese whine 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per my evidence above, per Caltrans linking to my evidence, per AASHTO's objection, and per I370. Gateman1997 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. I370 doesn't make a difference here. I370 doesn't meet I70, and I238 doesn't meet I80 either. Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

6. Although I-238 may function as a spur of I-80 (functionally), it is not legislatively a spur of I-80. As Wikipedia is based on fact not opinion, I-238 should not be treated as a spur of I-80 on Wikipedia.

Rejected - not a well-formed proposal. Break the first sentence up into a logical sequence, and lose the second sentence altogether. Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How can you "reject". Gateman1997 21:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Because, asd I've said three times now, it is not a well-formed finding of fact. Chris cheese whine 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify this, the two parts of the first sentence need to be proposed independently. One is proposed as #7 below, and the second makes a jump without identifying its premises. The second sentence is pure opinion, and does not follow from the premises given. Chris cheese whine 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - please re-read the instructions at the top of this section. First sentence not supported by other proposed findings of fact on this page, and the second sentence is editorialising on your part. Chris cheese whine 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So you can only propose something if it supports your view. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, but this is for findings of fact. Break the statement apart into its constituent parts, and remove all mention of what we should or should not do on Wikipedia - that is essentially trying to prejudge the issue. Chris cheese whine 21:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Chris, what you wrote on your oppose statement derivatively implies WP:CANVASS.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm confused. In whay way? All I said is that the first sentence needs to be broken up, and the second sentence effectively decides the whole issue, by-passing the whole point of this. Chris cheese whine 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Do not strike that statement again. That is striking someone else's comments. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
            • It is not a well-formed finding of fact. Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support per legislative definition.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support per the reasoning I've expounded above. Gateman1997 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Rschen and V60 - your opposition Chris pretty much tells us that you need to approve opinions before they go up - and that is not how this works -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This section is about trying to find facts. Statement 6 was an editorial opinion. Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

7. From (1.2), I-238 functions as part of the I-80 network.

• Support - from Rschen's statement #6 above. Chris cheese whine 21:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

8. As in the cases of I-105 and I-370, an Interstate route does not need to meet its parent directly

• Support - from the discussion above. Chris cheese whine 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, this is true, but it would support I-38 as parent of 238 then since 238 doesn't have to meet its parent. Gateman1997 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The second sentence is making a jump, and again prejudging the issue at hand, but not relevant to whether or not we consider this particular statement to be true. Is this making it clearer as to what I'm trying to achieve here? Chris cheese whine 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You've struck out and changed so many of your statements above and below so far that I'm having trouble remembering what it was you were trying to prove. Joking of course. But to he honest, your tweaking your statements isn't changing the fact we get what you're trying to say, and 4 people have now rejected your supposition. Per WP:CON you may have to live with that. Gateman1997 22:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Again, you misunderstand the nature of consensus. This process is aiming to establish the facts, and nothing more. No opinions, and no editorialising. Just the facts, ma'am. Chris cheese whine 22:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The examples given in #5 above did use faulty logic. Use Interstate 287 as an example instead. Just because it has both termini at I-95 doesn't make it a member of that family. -- NORTH ^talk 22:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 287 meets 87 in the middle rather than at the ends. Statement 8 is whether or not an 3DI must meet its parent. Chris cheese whine 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Statement 5 was that since it ends at I-580 and I-880, it must be a member of the I-80 family. -- NORTH ^talk 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

9. I-238 meets no other Interstate highways than I-580 and I-880

• Support (unless I'm missing one) Chris cheese whine 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Communication

1. CalTrans proposed the number 238 based on, amongst other factors, the previous designation of the road as CA-238.

• Support. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support legislatively.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support as it is the northern extension of SR238 to this day in most of Caltrans reporting and documentation such as Road Conditions and CALNEXUS. Gateman1997 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support CA law does not diffrentiate between I's and SR's in the law. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

2. AASHTO initially objected to the number.

• Support. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose ...the establishment of Route 880 and Route 238 have been approved.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, the did approve it, objections came after approval. Gateman1997 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

2.1. AASHTO initially expressed tacit objection to the number.

• Support - evidently they didn't like it while approving it. Chris cheese whine 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, they approved it first, objections came later. Gateman1997 21:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

2.2. AASHTO expressed tacit objection to the number.

• Support - they did express some objection, clearly. Chris cheese whine 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

3. AASHTO suggested alternative options which would have numbered the road in the I-x80 series.

• Support - stated in the article. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support per quotes.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support per quote on the main page. Gateman1997 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Following (2)(2.1) and (3), AASHTO's intention was to number it I-x80.

• Support - not a big jump. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose AASHTO gave CalTrans an option, not AASHTO demanding x80 numbering.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Their offering the option suggests that it was their intention. If they did not intend to do so, they would not have offered it. Chris cheese whine 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, they objected and gave options, but they didn't show any intention of naming it an x80 since that's not their call. Caltrans submits numbers and they approve or disapprove. They'd already approved 238. Gateman1997 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So, if they did not prefer x80, why did they suggest it? Chris cheese whine 22:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

5. Following (4), AASHTO believed the road to be part of the I-80 system.

• Support - otherwise they would not have suggested such numbering in the first place. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose AASHTO's numbering rules apply to every single Interstate—no exceptions.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This statement is specious - the number violates the rules, that's why we're here. Chris cheese whine 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, per their suggestion that it be renamed to an X80 after the approval of 238. They approved it but obviously had reservations because the non standard numbering put it outside the X80 family. Gateman1997 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "...the non standard numbering put it outside the X80 family". That isn't backed up anywhere, and is part of the reason we're discussing this in the first place. Chris cheese whine 21:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually as I've pointed out it is backed up in multiple places by "roadgeeks" as you term them. While they're not the most authoritative sources I'll grant you, however AA Roads, which supports my position, is linked to directly from Caltrans which is definitely an authoritative source on California Highways. Gateman1997 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • AA Roads is still a hobbyist site, and not a reliable or authoritative source by any definition, regardless of who links to it. Chris cheese whine 21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I would beg to differ. A large public entity linking to a site is tacit approval of its content IMHO. Gateman1997 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Please see WP:RS. I don't see "some government person decided to link to them" in the list of criteria. Chris cheese whine 21:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Please provide a reliable source that EXPLICITLY states what you're suggesting is fact. Saying RTFA doesn't give us any evidence to support you. I've provided at lease partially reliable sources, lets see you do the same. I don't think you can. I've searched AASHTO's site and found nothing. In the absence of that evidence we'll have to build a consensus, one you keep striking out. Gateman1997 21:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
              • You are misunderstanding the concepts of "reliable sources" and "consensus". A source is reliable, or it isn't. It's not "partially reliable". The original memos are reliable sources, and if you ask nicely, I'm sure CalTrans or AASHTO would find copies of them for you. Chris cheese whine 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
                • The memos do not say I-238 is a child of I-80, or a member of the I-80 family. Many interstates had different planning numbers originally. On of the I-79 spurs in Pittsburgh was originally given an x76 number (or vice versa). An x95 number was originally considered for I-676 (actually present I-76). -- NORTH ^talk 22:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes for Interstate spurs and loops

See WT:USRD#Infoboxes for Interstate spurs and loops. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)