User talk:NE2/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

E service

The Legendary Ranger left the following message for you on your archive talk page, which belongs here:

While the information does provide as to why the E now has limited service to Jamaica-179th Street, a lot of those information are not cited, and therefore, may not be true. Why should we have it there. The Legendary Ranger 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

The information contained in his webpage is not his content, rather content gathered from different sources from like ODOT. 'His' words are, in fact, not really his and therefore can be directly copied as he has stated before. Milktaco 04:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So referencing his webpage is irrelevant since they are not 'his' facts? Milktaco 05:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The other style used in the project is writing '1938 - certified' instead of 'certified in 1938'. Isn't that the exact same thing?

Falls Road

Hi, you moved Falls Road to Falls Road (Belfast). I think this was unnecessary. There are other Falls Roads, but the one in Maryland isn't nearly as well known and that article redirects to Maryland Route 25 anyway. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection requested for Template:Access icon

Yesterday, I requested the {{Access icon}} template be protected, but so far no response has been given. I'm sure that I am as annoyed as you are with other users constantly reverting the template, assuming they know better. The template really needs protection and ASAP because it has been getting reverted too much recently. You can view my protection request here. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Verbosity in exit lists

Lately I've noticed that several of the exit lists you've been editing have gained extremely verbose notes about each individual exits, describing configuration, direction and alternate routings for traffic seeking to access the road junctioned. Personally I don't mind providing such information, but IMO the verbosity overbalances the exit list, squashing the other columns at 1024x768 (and lower) and generally overloading the entire section.

What was wrong with a quick, simple note such as "Northbound entrance and southbound exit; use SR X to access from north"? That's what others have used, and that is what I used when building exit lists for the Roads in Maryland WikiProject. IMO decreasing the verbosity a great deal will provide a better look and better results. -TheOneKEA (20070621 09:24)

Decreasing the font size might work, but IMO I think putting less information in the column is a better option. This is how someone did it in the article on Interstate 70 in Maryland (which I initially wrote and edited), and I think it is a reasonable compromise. -TheOneKEA (20070621 22:19)

1920s numbers

Excellent work on starting off compiling the 1920s route numbers for NY/CT/MA. Regarding your comment about Route 136 in MA. A 1930 route log in the ALA Green Book lists it as 5 miles long between Warren RI (at Route 103) and North Swansea MA (at US Route 6), which seems to be pretty much where it is now. Also, there is a 1920s Route 142 (11 miles from Woonsocket RI to Wrentham MA), which is the highest route number in MA listed in the 1930 Green Book. I'll try to help fill in CT and MA whenever I can. --Polaron | Talk 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

NY 52

Saw your edits to that article (is it the secret USRD collaboration of the week? There's been a lot of attention to it in the last couple of days from some pretty active editors). Not that that's a bad thing ... JohnnyAlbert10 sees GA and FA potential in it, and having done the basics on it (and living a block away from it), I certainly don't mind the help and I wouldn't mind having another road GA to my credit, especially on one that is such a big part of my real life.

Re the two parts you tagged as OR: I can certainly get a picture of the "parkway" section to back that one up; it's just across town. I've been meaning to for a while. Ellenville is a tougher nut. I use the two stretches of 52 through the village in the manner described and so do a lot of other people (although it has been a long time since I actually drove all the way across Ellenville) transiting the village. I do feel that any notable aspect of an area open to the public that can be verified by simply visiting it should probably be footnoted as such rather than casting about for a source that says as much (oh, and make that a reliable source ... someone might say it on a blog, but we can't use it). See note 5 for Stony Clove Notch as an example of where I've done this before. Anyone passing through that area can check that information. It's the same with Ellenville ... spend 10 minutes driving those two sections of 52 and you'll see the point. If I could illustrate it with photos, I'd do it, but other than the one there it's rather complicated.

It could definitely use some local history research, though. NYSDOT no longer seems to consider the split valid, although signs and reference markers remain on both streets. It seems Canal Street is the official route, at least east of 209. The ideal route, really, would be Center Street west of 209, a one-block duplex with 209, then Canal Street out of town and up the Gunks to the east. And lo and behold I just looked at Google maps and that's what it shows ... but that's contradicted by DOT's own description, which I do not recall showing any overlap with 209.

I seem to recall Center Street being bannered as "ALT 52" or "Truck 52" at one point (the reference markers on Canal Street use a weird coding system for the lower line, the one that gives segment number (as if Ulster County had more than one segment of 52 in any event!) and mileage. It begins "1V" ... very curious. I should see about asking local-history people in Ellenville and the local DOT region(8, in this case) what they can tell me, and authenticate. Daniel Case 03:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine ... a picture will communicate that point far better than words do (you really do suddenly wonder if you're on a divided road with a median strip). I gave it a separate section because it was in the route description originally, but I thought it would bog down what I try to keep a continuing narrative. I also feel there's some history here worth researching and documenting ... it really looks like DOT built a whole new road just south of the old one. From when we first moved here, I've wanted to know why. And I live here, and am connected with a few people who can probably help me find out why. I have no excuse for not doing this, really.

As for that map, look closely. 52 follows Canal Street all the way, at least there ... the shields have little arrows pointing to Canal. Daniel Case 03:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I see ... it's not the finest-quality scan. Daniel Case 04:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the shields ... there are some "Ulster County 52" shields on the roads marked as 53 on that map (as if it wasn't confusing enough at the western end of Ellenville). Are you suggesting that maybe the county maintains Center Street? I don't know if there's any sort of official Ulster County route list online.

There are, as the articles on NY 52 and 55 indicate, some sections of both roads in Sullivan County (region 9 as opposed to region 8 for the rest of the mid-Hudson) that are county-maintained, but they're clearly marked as such. Daniel Case 04:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it OK now to use those redirects as the main link like you did in the junction table? I know it makes it a little easier to edit; but my understanding was that we should avoid using redirects as the link target if at all possible to lower the server load. Certainly I've always written articles that way.

Oh, I also changed "Glenwood Park", which no one uses for that area of the town of Newburgh (if anyone ever did, the neighborhood was probably destroyed when the interstate was built), to "Winona Lake" which is both an actual feature and the local fire district, and would be more recognizable to anyone familiar with the area.

Are we no longer using those colors and mouseovers to code things, either? Daniel Case 13:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bridges in the box

FWIW I support them ... major water crossings are always notable along the course of a road. Hey, if we have lists of crossings for the rivers crossed by Route 52 that includes reference to it, we ought to make the same notation in road articles. Daniel Case 04:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Walden High Bridge

I'll find a source, but everyone in Walden does indeed call it the High Bridge (probably why it has huge signs at either end saying "Walden Veterans' Memorial Bridge"). I know I saw it in print once ... probably in one of our local weeklies not online, or some old history or newspaper clippings. I'll have to look at the library. Daniel Case 13:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found at least one source online ... a photo cutline in a pretty standard history of Walden and Maybrook. I'll cite it and change the wording in the article. Daniel Case 13:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


It certainly seems like a service road, and it was probably kept for that purpose. But I don't think it was built to give those people a service road. There is no industry there, only houses. New York rarely does that sort of thing (I've never seen anything like it anywhere else in the state), at least not in communities this size, and as I said if you actually look at it on the ground it just seems like the road was relocated to the south a little ... at the western end, west of Highland Avenue, there is no roadway at all, just a very deep setback to the houses until you get to the first bridge. Nor does the roadway connect to Main Street at both ends (it ends at Woodruff Street, where there is only a footbridge over Tin Brook. It may be a bit clearer in an aerial photo if you can zoom in enough. If you were building a service road, you'd keep it open all the way. I'm sure there's a good explanation in the historical record somewhere.

Interestingly, Google maps shows the parallel road as also being part of 52 (if you zoom in tight enough). Daniel Case 14:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not fixing what's not broken

I know, I know ... I read that myself. However I still fail to see the logic of changing existing links that used the direct one; I feel this is confusing to novice editors (especially since you changed them to use redirects). For consistency's sake, can we use the same link to an article in every link from that article?

I also don't see why you created redirects that no one would possibly use as a search term ("Montgomery (town), NY"), other than to make your life as an editor easier. I don't think that's the purpose of redirects. Daniel Case 02:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

All the same, whatever policy says, most of the other editors I work with do follow an unwritten rule to use the proper name of the linked article. Especially where naming conventions are at stake ... not everyone knows the nuances of NC, and that helps educate other editors. Given the RfC that's been filed on you that raises this issue, and that some of your uses of redirects seem to be meant as a subtle challenge to the existing SNRC (which you seem to have disagreed with), I would be very careful, and I would not change existing links in an article that used the consensus naming convention to the one you would have preferred be used.

Look, you're quite talented and you've added a lot to the article. But I can see from some of the talk page discussion why you would have had an RfC filed. I have been considering writing an outside view for it and I would like to be writing that, rather than totally agreeing with the filers. Daniel Case 03:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2. Oh, my ... they didn't let you know? It has the requisite two signatures (Vishwin60 and JA10, which probably won't surprise you). I admit I don't know how these things work really well, maybe it's not fully active yet. I thought you were supposed to be notified by bot or something.

Anyway, if you want to post a defense, go ahead ... I won't post anything until after you've had your say. Daniel Case 04:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Actually, wait a bit ... it's current listed only as a "candidate page", despite the two signatures. I would wait to post a defense/response until it reaches the approved stage (which, technically, it should by now ... can just anyone move these up?) Daniel Case 04:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Washington Street streetcar article

Hi, it's awesome that you have written on Boston area transit issues. An easy way to find info on the streetcar line history would be to visit the MBTA library. It's in Jamaica Plain. You'd have to ask the MBTA to see exactly where it is, or to see if it's been moved downtown.

It's a shame that the MBTA never replaced the Orange Line elevated line with anything better than bus service. The street is so wide and has relatively little car traffic. Dogru144 12:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 25 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Key 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.

--Carabinieri 21:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Price's Turnpike and Cumberland Gap Road

I am not familar with either. The Library of Virginia is the best source I have found with the Virginia Board of Public Works archives, and that is where I usually start. I'll try to do some digging later tonight. Vaoverland 19:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 10

US blank.svg
Autoroute icone.svg

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 10 7 July 2007 About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates
Project news Kentucky subproject promoted California
Deletion debates AID restructuring Maryland
Featured member GA status Pennsylvania
From the editors Notability discussion currently collecting dust
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.VshBot (tc) 04:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixing Redirects

Yeah, and there was also a "you can help" project at one point that was all about fixing redirects.

Pardon me for being involved. --22:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Free-world 22:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

another RFC

You might want to take a look at this. (vishwin60 - review) 18:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Snicker's Gap Turnpike

Updated DYK query On 12 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Snicker's Gap Turnpike, 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.

--GeeJo (t)(c) • 10:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 70 in Missouri's exit list

Hey, can you put the County column in and use the state-specific MO Interstate shields? Thanks, (vishwin60 - is User:O in 4 days (possibly)) 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Shield has been uploaded. (vishwin60 - is User:O in 4 days (possibly)) 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yo NE2

Why do you keep messaging me about the dates are wrong. I put them right you had them wrong because you can clearly click the station link and it says another date from what you put. I just put the dates that it said on the article, so stop saying i put them wrong.


Hi, these were speifically requested because of the related changes bug, which does not back-propogate through redirects. It is not however an exercise I plan to repeat. Rich Farmbrough 18:48 18 July 2007 (UTC).


Which is the shortest highway, if it's not 40A? Both and, while not strictly reliable sources, denote it as such. Do you know one that's longer? According to the first link, it's actually ~0.25 miles long. I need to look at Eric Stuve's sources; I believe he got them out of an ODOT publication, but I'll have to ask him to be for sure. His lengths have been what I've been citing.

I think old SH-4 served a lot more than current SH-37, so maybe we need to research that further. I've not done any work on the old highway system because it doesn't really interest me, but we might certainly like to have articles on them. Have you looked through the ODOT history files yet? You can find a list of the available ones at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma State Highways/History.

Something nobody's really been able to find out is when Oklahoma transitioned between the various shield designs. At the beginning, Oklahoma used a yellow diamond shape shield with the block lettering. I'll try to do some shields of that design. Sometime before the construction of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike, the shields were switched to a white square design: Oklahoma 36 1948 oversize.svg. This sign is outlined in the H.E. Bailey signing plans. (See the image description page.) It might have been a BGS variant of the yellow diamond. Sometime later the circle was introduced Circle sign 36.svg, which was used until the fourth generation "meat cleaver" shield was designed in January 2007.

Let me know if you need any help editing; working around an unfamiliar highway system (and Oklahoma's has quite a few nuances) can be kind of confusing, so if you need someone to collaborate with I'll help you out wherever I can.—Scott5114 06:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Most roadgeeks have been under the impression that SH-19D was decommissioned. It does still appear on the highway map but all references to it in the field were removed. However, I think we're treating the Control Section map books as definitive, though, so that would mark 19D as 'living'. ODOT seems to enjoy making routes go 'stealth' like this; SH-35 is one that was thought was dead only to be found in the Control Section books. There was a spur of 51 (I think D also) that was thought decommed. I think 97T was definitively decommissioned, though. —Scott5114 06:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
(P.S. Have you seen anything about a 19A and B?)
Yes, I meant 7. Sorry. —Scott5114 06:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Route 19 redirect

Please stop making this into a disambiguation page. Though it may seem to you that somebody wants the U.S. Route, the context of this is a decommissioned route, and its latest designation of that route was Pennsylvania Route 39. This is exactly the same logic as Pennsylvania Route 62 being redirected to PA 100, as that route superseded PA 62. (O - RLY?) 00:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But that comment is factually incorrect, as PennDOT calls US 19 SR 19, not PA 19. Our articles (Pennsylvania Route x) are talking about the signed routes, so the quadrant designation doesn't really matter (as Pennsylvania Route 380 is SR 400). The article Pennsylvania Route 19 establishes the fact about the former signed route (PA 19) which was superseded by the former PA 39. (O - RLY?) 00:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Signing errors don't matter. If a particular route has had its designation usurped by another route, then the former route article should then be redirected to the new route article. Another example on this front is Pennsylvania Route 70 redirecting to PA 171. On another note, PennDOT does not get signage wrong, not even the slightest bit, though it could be disputed that Pennsylvania Route 1 was signed on a freeway section of US 1 north of Philadelphia. That is actually correct, as that part of US 1 used to be the Lincoln Highway, which was designated PA 1 in Pennsylvania. (O - RLY?) 01:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Even more, I thought you were going to find out why something the done the way it is before changing it. It didn't look like you were going to find out how this stuff was done. (O - RLY?) 01:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
All that you mentioned are 4–6 years old, though I will say that the US 1/13 thing is still there, however the 13 has been completely scratched off. There is absolutely no proof that they were corrected, because mplex isn't a reliable source. Though PennDOT was wrong to put PA Route 19 there, they made it correct by stating SR 0019 next to it. Back to the redirect/disambiguation issue, it wasn't me who changed them all, it was TMF (check the relevant page histories). (O - RLY?) 01:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


In order to officially adopt an article, you must list it first. Thanks, (O - RLY?) 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


I've unfortunately had to file another RFC—please don't take this personally, but here it is. (O - RLY?) 19:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 215 (Nevada)

How do the exit numbers work on 215? A flippant reply could be, simple read the exit signs. While this may be a bit of OR, the ones listed on the exit signs don't agree with what is on Goggle. Goggle maps is wrong! The problem is the sources that don't get updated. There was an article in the Review Journal about the change a few years ago, but I can't seem to locate it. I'll verify a few of these today when I drive the road. Vegaswikian 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As for exits 44 to 47, is this portion even a freeway yet?
Not sure about that being a freeway. I think the section adjacent to I-15 is, but the rest is not. There are several other sites that list exits, speed limits and lane configuration that show exit numbers for that end. I also picked up a AAA map when I was out that shows the exit numbers that appear to match what is signed. I'll update with that as a general reference. Vegaswikian 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pennsylvania Route 39 (1920s)

Pennsylvania Route 39 (1920s), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Pennsylvania Route 39 (1920s) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 39 (1920s) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Pennsylvania Route 39 (1920s) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Son 04:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Texas 1920s highways

See the map here, [1] by the State Highway Department with the statement as adopted June 1917. See this map from 1922, [2] showing Highway 26. Highway 26 was proposed in 1917, there isn't a doubt in my mind. I don't have an answer as to why the newspaper article only says 25. I am willing to trust a map by the State Highway Department over a small town newspaper. --Holderca1 00:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but the final approved plan still shows 26 highways, SH 26 was proposed in that plan and built as proposed. I don't see where the argument here is. The way you worded everything on the page makes it sound like SH 26 might have been proposed/numbered in 1917. We have documentation from the state of Texas that states that is was proposed in 1917. --Holderca1 00:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Well, SH-66 follows a different route through Tulsa and Oklahoma City than U.S. 66. Also, U.S. 66 was longer - SH-66 only runs from Vinita to El Reno. I only saw this because I was trying to plot a route home from Missouri and needed its east terminus...and got U.S. 66, which wasn't what I was looking for.

In any case, when there's a current highway and a decommissioned highway, the current highway should always take precedence, even when the decommed highway is Route 66. —Scott5114 05:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Have U.S. 66 cover any history when it was still extant, SH-66 for after the U.S. route was decommissioned. Have U.S. 66 cover the historic alignments (this is especially of interest for U.S. 66) and SH-66 cover the most recent routings. —Scott5114 06:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Old SH-66 became SH-66B —Scott5114 06:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, SH-66B would be covered in the article on SH-66, as it is a lettered spur, and there's not enough about them for their own articles. —Scott5114 06:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Of course we'll have some sort of see also/main article thing between the articles so that you can go between articles sanely. —Scott5114 08:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 28 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article State Route 69 (Utah), 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.

--W.marsh 00:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Route 32 and U.S. Route 38

I would like a specific reason why you reverted those specific highways back to U.S. Route 6. I believe they should be separate articles in their own right:

1. According to my research, the routes those highways followed do not strictly follow US 6. US 32 went from Council Bluffs, Iowa to Princeton, Illinois on what is now US 6, but then went east from Princeton to Chicago on what is now U.S. Route 34. US 38 began in Greeley, Colorado following what is now US 34, then went on a road that follows the current US 6 from Wiggins, Colorado to Omaha. In both situations, US 6 did not take over the whole road.

2. Decommissioned highways, even those that were decommissioned during the Great Depression, are notable as according to a discussion I initiated, and you were involved with, here.

3. U.S. Route 55, a highway with a similar history to US 32 and US 38, only it got mostly, though not completely, taken over by U.S. Route 52, with a small part now U.S. Route 67, continues to exist as an entry here. As far as I can tell, no one has suggested redirecting that to U.S. Route 52.

DandyDan2007 07:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I got your message and I can agree with US 38 being merged into US 6, given what the history is. But US 32 is different, because it did get split up. And US 55 is the same way. But then, there are other routes that got swallowed whole by other routes, such as U.S. Route 370 being taken over by U.S. Route 287. Frankly, I don't know how clear the standard is. There is no definitive statement that I can find other than what I stated above about decommissioned highways. It seems to me all of them that ever existed should be here and that's true whether you are looking up US 66 or US 102. DandyDan2007 09:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Huh? --NE2 02:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I just enjoy spreading WikiLove, that's all. Connell66 02:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with spreading WikiLove? Connell66 02:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry to bother you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connell66 (talkcontribs)

Removal of link

Interstate 90 exit guide

I'm curious your rationale behind removing this link. The exit guide provides more in depth information than the Wiki article, including rest stops and toll barriers. --Son 02:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Information deemed unnecessary in an article doesn't mean that it's unnecessary to provide a link for. If anything, that's more of a reason to provide a link. --Son 02:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


There was a problem with the template and I finally figured it out, apparently we were hitting the limits of the template. See Wikipedia:Template_limits. Apparently, the page size after everything has expanded is 2MB, so I made some changes, such as moving the documentation to a separate page (anything inside <noinclude> doesn't get expanded). I used Interstate 10 in Texas to test when we have surpassed the limits since it calls jct the most. So keep an I on that article if you make changes to jct in the future. Thanks. --Holderca1 16:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of FHWA links

Removal of some of the links removed on 28 July I can understand... removal of the ones to the FHWA Interstate Table, not so much.

Was it because the information was out of date? —Rob (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. So the link was valid, but it wasn't being referenced properly. I'd much rather leave the link and turn it into a proper reference. —Rob (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Virginia State Route 277

VA Route 277 is listed as Virginia State Route 277, not State Route 277 (Virginia), the latter being a redirect to Virginia State Route 277.

I have reverted these changes back to their previous, per WP:MOS. Please check your corrections before making them. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to, please take a look at your own manual of style.
State: Virginia
Official name: State Route X
Article title: Virginia State Route X
You are violating the WP:USSH manual of style as well. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, don't quote the manual of style and then back track. It says what it says and it says VA State route links should be "Virginia State Route X" and not "State Route X (Virginia)". - NeutralHomer T:C 03:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Either post the other articles, or I change it back and call in an admin. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
...and you need to leave things alone that you know nothing about. The copyright situation is being taken care of. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, since you are citing a rule, that is telling you the articles are to be titled "Virginia State Route X" and you are changing the title of the article to "State Route X (Virginia)", which just redirected right back to "Virginia State Route X" (so it is a pointless redirect) and you are not trying to change this after being shown your error, I will be taking this to an admin. I suggest you revert your MANY edits. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Directly from your current edit of Stephens City, Virginia, with the WikiLinks in question "nowiki"ed out....
  • "A market house that stood in the center of the town’s main square (the modern-day intersection of U.S. Route 11 and [[State Route 277 (Virginia)|State Route 277]]) was torn down to make way for this new road, and toll gates were established to collect fees from travelers to pay for the improvements."
As you can see, you are linking not to [[Virginia State Route 277]] but to [[State Route 277 (Virginia)]] which immediately redirects back to [[Virginia State Route 277]]. This is not what the manual of style on WP:USSH says or you say you are doing. - NeutralHomer T:C 04:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
...and that's fine, that can be changed, but when the WikiLink itself is wrong and is in violation of the rule you are citing to me, then it should be changed. When possible, we should use the actual WikiLink and not a redirect. - NeutralHomer T:C 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
But it is redundant to change a non-redirected link (Virginia State Route 277) to a re-directed one (State Route 277 (Virginia)) in violation of the manual of style you are citing. It looks sloppy and redundant. - NeutralHomer T:C 04:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You changed a link, "Virginia State Route 277", which is not a redirect to "State Route 277 (Virginia)" which is a redirect. That redirect goes right back to "Virginia State Route 277". You just created a redundancy which the WP:USSH manual of style tells you not to do. Dude, you are breaking a rule, a rule you cited and trying to back it up. - NeutralHomer T:C 04:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
OK...cause this is giving me a VERY bad migraine, I am going to do something.....gimme a minute. - NeutralHomer T:C 04:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at it now. [[Virginia State Route 277|State Route 277]] is how it reads. The "Virginia State Route 277" WikiLink makes me happy, the "State Route 277" text makes you happy. We are all happy. Now, I need a stiff drink and a vicodin. - NeutralHomer T:C 04:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
See, told ya that would make us both happy:) As for the copyright issue, watching your grass grow would take shorter time then this damned copyright issue. I swear it is moving slowing then molasses. I have done what I can, this is now the waiting game. - NeutralHomer T:C 04:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like I arrived a little late; but that doesn't seem to be a bad thing, as you guys appear to have sorted things out satisfactorily. If that's not the case, and you need my help in ironing any differences, or anything else, please let me know. Happy editing! :) Phaedriel - 06:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

CR 447

yes as a mater of fact CR 447 does exist, I've seen it with my own eyes and drove on it in a car. Go to Gerlach and you'll see it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolrocketdude3444 (talkcontribs)

Fingers of Pyrex RFC

O was the one that created it - but he's out almost all of August. master sonT - C 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 10 in Arizona

I have start doing more clean-up, however there are still alot more to do. Rest areas highlight in light blue may not need include along with zoo wildlife in brown. The road signs can be smaller. I kept jct closed highlight in pale yellow because it's standard color for jct legend. You can help to do more clean-up so we don't always have to see those purple tag. Freewayguy 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Florida State Road 26A redirect

Thanks for redirecting that article. I had trouble trying to do it myself before. ---- DanTD 01:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


The old method didn't work at all, I addressed it all on the template's talk page. Only counties with county roads and they would eventually need to be created for infobox browsing anyways. --Holderca1 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If it works, go for it. I still see the county specific templates being needed down the road anyways, for example NJ has one for every county. --Holderca1 19:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, nice work. --Holderca1 20:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

College Park Interchange

Where have the state shield come from? How come I don't see it on Interstate 695 (Maryland) ? Freewayguy 00:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Utah State Route 201

FYI, Your most recent edits introduced an error. There is no exit 15C on this route, this is either an error in google maps or one of those intentional things to catch people who copy =-). The exit is 16. Dan Stober's page has it correct I'm also a little bummed you wiped out the exit list I put together. I put a lot of work into that. oh well. =-) Davemeistermoab 02:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates

All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master sonT - C 16:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephens City, VA

I submitted permission, it was obviously recieved, because I was told by User:Mufka that is was "not formatted correctly", but was given no further information and recieved nothing from ComComm. User:Mufka was supposed to find out more, but again never got back to me. I held up my end. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can tell me what I need to do and get, I would be glad to get it. I am willing to work with you all, I just need to know what is needed. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup...I was linked there by another user helping me out with this. I am not sure what to do now. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania decommissioned routes

Apparently they're having problems in Pennsylvania with someone making stubby, unreferenced articles about decommissioned routes. Since you seem to enjoy editing in the area of historic routes, perhaps you might want to look into it? —Scott5114 05:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PYLrulzScott5114 06:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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) 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for coming together to say this; I hope we can work together better. I don't really know how to say this and make it sound genuine, so pretend it does :) --NE2 22:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:FEUS

Template:FEUS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master sonT - C 23:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

County_roads_in_Hennepin_County, Minnesota

You started the article County roads in Hennepin County, Minnesota - just wanted to clarify that I assessed it as a "List" class article. I also added the {{WikiProject Minnesota}} tag. (the grey line kinda steps over on county highways for WP:MNSH in my opinion also) please advise if this not correct. Thanks master sonT - C 23:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • works for me. I'll reassess it to start then. master sonT - C 23:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Decommissioned Routes

Thanks. I knew was used for a lot of the routes that are current, and I was able to use the maps that I was using on Yahoo Maps to at least get a better idea of whats nearby, and use it on the pages.

Ill probably end up hitting the current routes anyway, as I was trying to mix things up by doing some of the decommissioned routes, that way, I didnt get bored with creating the articles.

Ill go with what you have suggested, and thanks again :) Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 03:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Angrygamer and I-35W

I removed the "detour image" from the infobox - and it looks like the second time. The image also didn't have a license either. master sonT - C 22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)