User talk:Rschen7754
 | |
| Wikipedia ads | file info – show another – #62 |
| This is Rschen7754's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
NY 474
If you think I have no idea how to do it, please show me. The technical aspect of review may be be clear to me but the article does meet all 6 criteria, in my opinion. Thank you for your help. Chergles (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is very important that you learn how to review articles properly - the technical aspect is very important - you made a mess of the system. If you can't do the technical aspect properly, then please don't review GAs. Use {{GAList2}} to organize your review. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Freewayguy?
Emerald405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --NE2 02:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Correct. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
RE: Nonstandard Section
I agree with you Rschen7754. I noticed another user placing a seperate section for the routes. I was just continuing his work. Making a simple sentence would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cello06 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Shields
Why are you restoring the shields? Those routes are not signed. Only the route names should remain. --Mgillfr (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen the shields for the San Diego County ones myself (the routes are signed), so the shields should be displayed there. Otherwise, I do see the point - but you would need to take it up at WT:ELG. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, you mean county shields signed like this (i.e. SR 78 at El Camino Real) [1]? I thought that on freeway segments, we only include what is displayed on BGS like this [2]. --Mgillfr (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- ELG says "guide signs" not BGS. Since these routes are signed, the shields should stay.
- Oh, you mean county shields signed like this (i.e. SR 78 at El Camino Real) [1]? I thought that on freeway segments, we only include what is displayed on BGS like this [2]. --Mgillfr (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/ca-078_eb_exit_002_03.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/ca-078_eb_exit_002_04.jpg){kind=link}
- Routes should always be included in the exit text (destination) column, whereas other stuff not on the BGS should not go in the destination column. That being said, the ELG page could probably use a clarification on this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is there's tons of gray area here. What I _try_ to do is if the route is signed, use the shield, even if it's not signed on the BGS. If the route is unsigned list it in parands next to the text. However, there's plenty of gray area as to what is/is not signed. I've seen several routes that are signed only at the end, but not any junctions, etc. Also I've seen routes that were unsigned, but after maintenance, suddenly shields appear, and vice-versa. I've also seen routes that are signed in one direction, but not the other. IMO it's not worth a guideline or edit warring. IMO if you're working on an exit list for a route, make your best effort. If you see an exit list that is incorrect, if it's a minor error (such as shield present on an unsigned route) and only one or two of them, I'd let it be. Dave (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I-5 (CA) rewrite
Okay, I'm fine with your re-write, as I see you might want to just refine the prose. However, I don't know why would you like to remove the references I added. Those are reliable sources as they are maps taken from the respective websites. Explain why those refs should not be added. --Mgillfr (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- You don't need them. You can just cite a map. Those references are superfluous and not necessary. GAN, ACR, and FAC will not accept articles like that.
- For examples of what the articles are supposed to look like, see California State Route 78 and Interstate 70 in Utah. Most of the California articles use the wrong formatting. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
For SR 78 (CA) why do names belong in RD? They summarize the route as a whole, and many CASH articles put the names in the lead. --Mgillfr (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, it goes in the route description. The names don't summarize the history - thus they may summarize the route as a whole, but for it to go in the lead, it has to summarize the article as a whole. Many CASH articles are deviant from USRD standards and have to be corrected - thanks to many deviant editors and my lack of time to clean up after these deviant editors. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- So how does this still belong to the lead and summarize the article as a whole? I only see it summarize the route only:
| “ | This route is part of the California Freeway and Expressway System[1] and is eligible for the State Scenic Highway System[2]. | ” |
- --Mgillfr (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- For that, it may be good to consult WT:USRD - I don't feel comfortable with that in the lead because of the citations (since you're not really supposed to have citations in the lead). But it doesn't exactly seem to mesh with the Route description either. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- That probably should go in the description, maybe as part of a first paragraph describing the route as a whole. --NE2 19:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- And there we go :P The legislative names should probably go there too. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- If at all...does anyone really care that a 5-mile section is named the State Trooper Nathan Edgars II Memorial Highway? --NE2 19:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I personally think it depends. If New England Route 2 is about 10 miles long, then maybe the name on a 5-mile segment is notable. But in this case, that name obviously doesn't even exist - because if the name really was Nathan Edgars II "Memorial" Highway, you wouldn't be here anymore. Mgillfr (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- What should matter is whether anyone uses the name. For an example of what I'm talking about, see the end of California State Route 99#Local changes. --NE2 20:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I personally think it depends. If New England Route 2 is about 10 miles long, then maybe the name on a 5-mile segment is notable. But in this case, that name obviously doesn't even exist - because if the name really was Nathan Edgars II "Memorial" Highway, you wouldn't be here anymore. Mgillfr (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- If at all...does anyone really care that a 5-mile section is named the State Trooper Nathan Edgars II Memorial Highway? --NE2 19:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- And there we go :P The legislative names should probably go there too. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- --Mgillfr (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
California SR 65 Talk page
I saw in this diff's edit summary you stated you removed the discussion because it was "not related to the article". Not that it matters a whole lot, but IMHO it was related. Sunrise Blvd in Sacramento and Citrus Heights was a planned portion of SR 65, but it was never fulfilled. The second half of my post on that page was about the historic routing of SR 65 through Roseville. I don't see how those posts could be considered "unrelated" to the topic of the article. Killiondude (talk)
- It's not to the topic of the article; it's to the article itself. Talk pages are not a forum for discussion of the article's subject. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well I could see how one might get the impression it wasn't about the article itself, but my post about the freeway going through Roseville (the old routing) was my attempt to ask if anybody could add that to the article. I myself (at the time) was looking for sources that showed it (so I could add it to the article since I don't know the whole routing) and could not find any. I was hoping that somebody who visited to the page (and subsequently the talk page) would be able to add that. Killiondude (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Reverted; my apologies. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- No need to apologize, no harm done. Thanks for being understanding. I appreciate that. Killiondude (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Reverted; my apologies. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well I could see how one might get the impression it wasn't about the article itself, but my post about the freeway going through Roseville (the old routing) was my attempt to ask if anybody could add that to the article. I myself (at the time) was looking for sources that showed it (so I could add it to the article since I don't know the whole routing) and could not find any. I was hoping that somebody who visited to the page (and subsequently the talk page) would be able to add that. Killiondude (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
CASH articles without junction lists
Do you know any California road articles that do not yet have junction lists? --Mgillfr (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I know there are quite a few - try above 100. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Sierra Highway
Rschen, I _FINALLY_ finished the re-write of Sierra Highway, a stepping stone to get both U.S. Route 395 and California State Route 14 up to GA. Would you mind giving this a quick overview to see if I missed anything. As this took about 50 times longer than I expected, i'd like to get a DYK out of it =-). Also, I think I might nominate this for GA also, I would argue this should not have a major intersections table, as this is more talking about a historical highway whose modern definition isn't 100% clear. do you concur? (if it does need a major intersectins table, I'll drop work and not nominate it for GA, i've improved it enough to meet my needs). Dave (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello - Im new to Wikipedia and wanted to know how my deleted article (blatent advertising) is any different that any of the similar articles found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Racing_schools I look forward to a reply - JKF0021 re: FAASST Performance Driving School Article