User talk:NE2/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Nova Scotia map

I'll have a look for one. As soon as I find a good one, I'll let you know. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 23:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This [1] might be useful to you. It's from the Nova Scotia tourism page. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 23:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I figured a paper one would be more authoritative though. --NE2 23:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there would be a major difference between what the Tourism Association produces on paper and on the internet. The map that I linked to comes from their website (See [2]}). Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 02:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at this [3], and remembered this conversation, so I thought it might be helpful to you to add the link. I don't know if you've recently been editing about this sort of thing, but it's another resource for you to look at. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 13

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. —Rschen7754bot 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

List of provincial highways in Ontario

Greetings NE2,

Regarding your major reconstruction of the list of provincial highways in Ontario, you've done a very good job (this is my first compliment to you-- well fine, let's put the unhappy things away for now). May I give you some comments below? You may take it if you like to!

• First of all, the last column "Eliminated" does not sound right, it should be something like "Decommissioned". If applicable, list the specific decommissioned section of the particular highway. Citation for both the "Eliminated" and "Formed" columns could be found here: [4]
  • Either one seems like an acceptable word. About the citation... that's not a reliable source.

• Secondly, I understand why you put the 400-series highways on the top of the list. Personally, for the sake of easy navigation, they should be put numerically like the rest of the highways.
  • If you want to view them numerically, you can click the box next to "Number". However, someone going to the list is probably more likely to want a 400-series highway, so it makes sense to put them first.

• Third of all, I think you should merge the "km" and "mi" columns into one. Just makes it easier to read. You could put it in a format like this (assuming the heading looks like [Length in km (mi)]): 480 (298 mi).
  • That screws up sorting.

• Fourthly, it would be nice to add some images, and especially road shields. Make them clickable (meaning you can click on the image, and it would take you to the article directly, not to an image profile page) if needed be.
  • Why? What does the shield add that the text doesn't?

• Last but not least, it would also be nice if you place one more column at the right end of the list -- and that is the AADT section. Having an AADT section helps the reader to understand how busy the road is. For example, for Highway 6, you might put this at the AADT column (assuming the heading looks like [Average AADT]): 43,280
  • Not really... if we had a list of same-length segments of road, it might make sense, but the average AADT for a 500-km road doesn't really mean anything.

Okay, you might not like my suggestions, but I guess that would help you a bit. Turn them down if you want, and I would glad to pitch in and help when needed be. If this list is successful, I will start to import this particular list style into other highway lists. Thanks!

• See list of Minnesota state highways for a completed list of this style.

By the way, your Template:Ontario numbered highways is a good template. Only it is too compact, too confusing, I suggest separate the template links into sections, like I did already. I know you don't always like my suggestion (you seemed to like to go against me, oh well.)

• Compactness can be a good thing...

 Smcafirst | Chat  at 02:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply here so I can reply to each part individually. --NE2 02:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One last complaint. When creating articles, and when you are making links referring to geographic places, please do not use a format like "Seagrave, ON", instead, please use "Seagrave, Ontario" format instead. Kinda makes everybody's job easier.
Cheers,
 Smcafirst | Chat  at 02:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean; whose job is made easier? --NE2 02:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Walt Disney World resorts

Deletion has been proposed for this article, rather than replace it with a redirect, the content should be moved to more appropriate pages. Please add your thoughts to the talk page.--Rtphokie 03:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not replace content on Walt Disney World resorts with a redirect until other editors have a chance to comment on the deletion proposal.--Rtphokie 03:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, how confident are you that either of the pages you've redirected this article to contain sufficient content to serve as replacements for Walt Disney World resorts? I've not investigated it fully which is why I nominated it for deletion to rather than just redirect it. If you've validated that the target page isn't missing anything that Walt Disney World resorts provides, then thats fine by me. Otherwise the target page should be improved with missing content from Walt Disney World resorts, sound reasonable?--Rtphokie 03:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

GSP shield

We no longer have to remove Image:GSPkwy Shield.png; it turns out it's in the public domain. --NE2 22:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank's for the update. I thought that should be the case, and I'm glad it is. Think of all of theg places where it had been removed. Alansohn 22:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Moves

I've discussed with others on IRC and they agreed with my decision to split out the U.S. Roads portal. I'm only doing the moves to preserve the history; afterwards, I'll recreate the North American portal. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a de facto revision. The North American portal will be virtually untouched. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This was a compromise; I would prefer that the whole move be reverted and just have the USRD portal. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Inactivity check and news report

Hello, NE2. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:

1. Please update your information at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
2. There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Split articles

I split it too. Basically, my rationale is that state detail articles should cover one state only, because the main article can cover those states that are too short for a state detail article. State detail articles are split off when the details about that state are too much to fit in the main article. —Scott5114↗ 19:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly don't you understand? I feel the main article should have the most attention devoted to it. —Scott5114↗ 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S. 50 is a lot more developed than Interstate 59 is, though. —Scott5114↗ 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove that reverting me was necessary? —Scott5114↗ 21:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:Article series and Wikipedia:Summary style support my position. —Scott5114↗ 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Or that the highway passes through 4 states, thus the headings should be:

• Louisiana
• Mississippi
• Alabama
• Georgia

That's how it's done on every other interstate highway article. See Interstate 35, Interstate 40. Then the two long sections would be Mississippi and Alabama, leaving LA and GA in the main article. That way you get the most information from the main article (it is called the main article, so it should live up to that) and the separate articles only go into detail where detail exists. —Scott5114↗ 23:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to do an article RFC? —Scott5114↗ 23:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My redirection of a disambig

Oh. I didn't know the 2nd link on the page actually had an article. :-) —[[Animum | talk]] 00:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Disamb pages

Oops. sry about the speedy templates!! - superβεεcat  00:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what context means, I didn't realize it was a disamb page and said I was sorry. Maybe YOU should look up WP:civil - superβεεcat  00:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

Did you know? was updated. On 25 September, 2007, a fact from the article Wurzbach Parkway, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 18:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job on expanding and nominating for DYK. --Holderca1 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Question about the direction of Mexican highways

Hi there, the Mexican highways are ordered from west-east (pairs) and from north-south (uneven).In particulary the highways 3, 5 and 8 can grow just to the south. I hope this can ansewer your question. JC 08:45 28 September 2007 (UTC-8) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

invalid speedy reason

You tagged Category:Highways in Oregon for speedy deletion using {{db-empty}}. Unfortunately this speedy deletion rationale is only for articles, not for categories. Speedy deletion reason C1 may apply, however. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Roads in Canada

Just to tell you that this article: Roads in Canada is a good idea, but is not (and will not) work very well. I suggest grouping the city templates by province, and not by the whole nation. Currently though, I am going to keep the "current" style, except for all Ontario templates. They will be moved to Roads in Ontario instead. Think about it: we have many cities in Canada, and when we have them all included in templates, the list is going to be ugly, and very long. We don't want that. It's going to get out of hand. Also, the list is WAY TOO messy. I suggest keeping the templates closed, and not expanded. I am currently working on these changes.

 Smcafirst | Chat  at 02:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 5 in Oregon reversion

OK, have it your way, but I checked the atlas, Google maps and Oregon Geographic Names, and many of the places you have listed as Foo, Oregon are not in any way, shape or form localities, which is what the form Foo, Oregon implies. I know you said "Feel free to change the ones that are red-linked and should omit the 'Oregon'", but I don't feel like trying to work with those horribly limiting templates again, (for example, Delta Park, is a park in Portland and has never been "Delta Park, Oregon") and get it wrong again, and get it reverted again. I realize I shouldn't have tacked "Road" or "Drive" onto some of those, but that was easily remedied. And yes, I screwed up Roseburg North, Oregon, but I'm pretty confident the other ones I've changed were accurate and were discussing cardinal directions, not actual locality names. I know you're a road expert, but I wish you would defer to someone who has specialized local knowledge and rather than wholesale reversion, edit the changes I made that you feel are clearly wrong or at least work with me before reverting. I'd thank you for all your hard work on the Oregon roads, but I'm too grumpy about your reverting several hours of work to feel it sincerely right now. And P.S. I do "fix" redirects if they encourage improper use of city naming conventions. P.P.S. And not to rub my superior knowledge about localities in your face or anything but this redirect? From a locale near Bend to a butte in Portland? So work with me here, I do know what I'm doing most of the time. Katr67 13:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Fixed a link"

I'm not trying to sound snotty, but what is difference between the note you left on my page about Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken and fixing links? Katr67 14:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 14

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. —O bot (t • c) 01:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Roads portal

Hi N32, just letting you know I've left a comment on the talk page of the Roads Portal about the References section. Take care, ~ Sebi _[talk] 02:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Road Construction Barnstar
		For contributing the most to Interstate 79, the U.S. Roads Article Improvement Drive collaboration, I present NE2 with this barnstar. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Bleh, I never finished with the history. Who knows if I could have though; I'm pretty dependent on whatever the Google News Archive has. --NE2 02:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

SR 7900

Got pictures today of the 7900 exit from I-95 north. Not a perfect day for them, but good enough. Unfortunately, HOV was for southbound traffic, so I had to do what I could from the northbound lanes. I'll try to get some of just 7100 tomorrow, and then the 7900 exit from 95 SB Sunday. Link's here--MPD ^{T / C} 19:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgia links in Interstate infobox

Hi, I notice you've been adding an infobox to articles about Interstete highways. Unfortunately, the box is linking to Georgia which is a disambiguation page, instead of to Georgia (U.S. state) which is its intended target. Are you able to fix this please? Thanks! DuncanHill 11:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I'm particularly efficient - but I do keep an eye on Georgia, as it's such an easy slip for people to make. Thanks for fixing. DuncanHill 11:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you! DuncanHill 11:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I-94 Business

The articles have been merged. O₂ (息 • 吹) 22:06, 08 October 2007 (GMT)

Where did you find all the Michigan Interchange Sign information

Based on all the recent Michigan exit list edits, I assume you found a source for what is listed on the BGS sign for each exit. For example, since I updated the original table for the Ford Freeway section in Detroit, I knew that I-94 was showing the Westbound exit numbers and text but that wasn't correct for the eastbound. Google now has the exit numbers for both directions, but I was waiting to grab a digital camera to change the table so the words on the BGS would be right.

Where did you find this information?

Good Work regardless. -- KelleyCook 16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand you are trying to get I-196 exit list better but to me it looked fine before you did your changes. Plus I thought we were supposed to list the As, Bs and such. Beyond that the Chicago Drive is a bit off. West bound uses A and B with East bound uses just the number. That will change with the new interchange with Baldwin which was removed from the list. Its there to show where it will be in the list along with the fact that its currently being surveyed and construction on it starts next spring. --Mihsfbstadium 05:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay I dont know why you didnt respond here but the other problem is all of the space in the exit list for cities. Most of those were removed which makes it look incomplete. On top of that I dont know why the future Baldwin exit was removed. --Mihsfbstadium 05:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

uhm I guess you didnt read that it is being surveyed for construction in the spring of 08. When the state budget has already been aproved for this I think we can say construction is occuring. --Mihsfbstadium 06:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Exit lists

There is a preferred/standardized table template for exit lists/intersection lists in usage. I used it on the M-35 article. It uses color coding with a legend to distinguish between concurrency termini and other types of intersections/exits. Imzadi1979 06:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This is the preferred template from the WP:MISH Imzadi1979 06:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I will only reply here since it makes following a single conversation easier to follow. The template I've referenced comes from the Michigan State Highways Project. Since M-39 properly belongs to that project, that's the template that's preferred in usage for that page. That is the only point I was trying to make. Imzadi1979 06:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting rather tedious, and once again, I will continue to reply on the talk page where the conversation originates for simplicity. Your work is appreciated, but I was only trying to point out a suggestion that the MSHP settled on a preferred template, when you threw up "ownership" in my face. Imzadi1979 06:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 376

If you want proof for a source, PennDOT themselves emailed me earlier today on the matter. If you wish, email me at jgera5@yahoo.com, and I will gladly forward you the email.Jgera5 05:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to argue a point with you on this. I don't have an issue with citing sources, I think it is a good idea. But getting a direct response from the people making the changes to our highways isn't a good enough source? Just asking.Jgera5 05:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Could you remember to change the class on the talk pages to class=Redirect, or redirect the talk as well? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Colorado Maps

Yea, it was that CDOT document i imported into illustrator, and edited the vectors + added the route lines. That CDOT thing should be in public domain, right? I tried updloading it as SVG before but I think the file was too big or something. atanamir 00:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. My mistake. Well, since i don't do roads at all anymore, should I go through and tag them for deletion? atanamir 08:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

MoDOT interstate abbreviation

Yeah, MoDOT does use I-x occasionally, you're right there. However, I'm having it show Route I-x based on this standard drawing from MoDOT, which recommends "Route I-29". I know it's ugly but as the standard usage given by the first page of that document I believe it's the best thing to do. —Scott5114↗ 20:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In documents, yes, but on signage it's almost always Route I-x, at least around the Springfield area. (Might be less consistent in another district). I could get a picture of signage along Route 13 for you if you'd like. —Scott5114↗ 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think (not for certain) that it's also used on exit signs when it's used as a control point ("To Route I-55") but I don't know if I have any pictures to back it up. It would certainly be correct there, as there's signage for "To Route 60" at the west end of the James River Freeway. Let's just leave it as Route I-xx, it's certainly not hurting anything. —Scott5114↗ 21:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jct template

Looked into it; deets on my talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you see that stuff yet? It's a bit geeky, but I hope it helps. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw it, and I think I got a decent way worked out. --NE2 11:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Exit lists

Are you making the exit lists for the Interstate state-detail articles yourself or copying them from somewhere? If you're splitting up e.g. an exit list article I understand, but if you wrote Interstate 35 in Missouri from scratch, could I remind you:

• include the county and location columns (WP:ELG)
• don't link to lettered routes (WP:MOSH)

Just a friendly heads-up. —Scott5114↗ 05:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Route O

Hopefully none of them have articles...they're really minor roads that aren't very long and get the last dibs when it comes to maintenance money (sort of like county routes). The only reason I could see one having an article is if it was a freeway or something (which seems unlikely) or if there was an urban arterial article that was also a lettered route - we would probably move it to the lettered route then. —Scott5114↗ 16:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that does look like it could probably use an article. Glad to hear you're fleshing out the exit lists. When doing city limits, I usually use a state map to find the limits, or if I don't have one from that state, I usually look at the shaded area on the latest Rand McNally. —Scott5114↗ 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to user:Seicer

Now I feel like a dumbass. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I should have checked further! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Might want to keep tabs on Interstate 670 (Ohio), user continues to add in original research. Second revert with long edit summaries left; notice on user page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 15

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. —O bot (t • c) 23:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your "neologism" edits

That isn't a new term, that was there when they decommissioned Route 66...and maybe earlier, so it's not that new. Thanks! Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 20:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And to build on that, I've never heard anyone "deleting" a highway. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The link you've posted only shows American terms. I have never heard this term in Canada before, and the highway system in my city was recently reconfigured. Highways here are either decommissioned or downloaded (downloading referring to sending a load (responsibility) down to a lower level of government). The only time deletion is referred to among highways in Canada is when we discuss the removal of sections of highway-related legislation. Other than that, deleting a highway is a neologism to us. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above comments ... I don't believe that "decommissioned" is either an arcane or an unclear term, but "deleted" definitely has the potential for misinterpretation. To me, the reconfigured sentences using "deleted" imply that the entire roadway was physically closed or removed, rather than just renumbered. Cheers! Pitamakan 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what "decommissioned" would mean. "Deleted" means that the designation was deleted. --NE2 22:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree on that one. If you really feel that "decommissioned" is less than clear, I think to avoid an even greater level of confusion you'd have to reword the sentences to say something like, "The Highway 10 designation was removed from the route in 19--," or something like that. Pitamakan 22:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only one: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Decommissioning --NE2 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In Ontario, it's referred to as either realigning and/or redesignating, ie "Highway 11/17 was realigned to include the Shabaqua Extension. The former Highway 11/17 will be redesignated as Highway 61." vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Then use those terms. Don't use a term that doesn't apply. --NE2 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Another note, when you change a field in an infobox form, it doesn't change the name of that field, it will remove it. To change the field name, you have to edit the infobox template to reflect the change, in this case, Template:Infobox road. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Another another note: In the "decomd." section of the infoboxes, it actually explains what happened to the highway. This is also apparent in the prose, clearing up any ambiguity. Simply saying "X highway was decommissioned" my be ambiguous, but saying "Highway X was decommissioned in Year X, at which time became Highway Y" is not. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 22:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you're coming from. Decommission can easily be found in the first article when you type in "define decommission" [5]. Delete is to remove something like incorrect text. Delete is the neologism with respect to highways - it is not a word associated with highways. You better get concensus next time before you make controversial edits like these. Royalbroil 02:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

AARoads is a "fansite", not a reliable source. --NE2 02:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the first hit when I type in "define decommission" at google.com. For my entire life I have always heard the term "decommission" used to describe a stretch of highway that was closed, including before Wikipedia existed. Here's a usage by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation on question 19 [6]. Maybe the term has reached a wider acceptance that you are aware. I am not a highways fan/junkie. I do have a problem with the term "deleted" since it is not an appropriate term for a highway (did someone take a big eraser to remove the asphalt?), so I have reworded to remove both of the controversial terms on the single affected article on my watchlist. Royalbroil 03:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the one usage I've found by a DOT (except for an Iowa DOT page copied from Wikipedia). It's evidence of a bit of spilling over. --NE2 03:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to not use the word "delete", since it appears to be controversial just like "decommission". Please do what I did and use neither word - reformulate the wording to avoid both terms. Wikipedia is here to help people understand things, not to confuse them. Several people have contended that "Delete" is a neologism too, so you risk being considered disruptive if you do any more mass replacement of the word "decommission" with "delete" in articles. Royalbroil 03:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I, well, think I agree with you. What's happened? --NE2 04:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To add to the argument against the use of 'delete', on an internet forum I asked the members the following question:

Has anyone here ever heard of a highway being deleted?

To which one member responded:

I'm interested VId, though I have no idea what you're talking about.

I have added this to my Sandbox2. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Delete" is now a strawman, since I'm not claiming it's the best term. --NE2 01:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but you did alter many (probably hundreds) of articles to include the term. Most people I have asked on line and in real life say the term decommissioned makes the most sense, yet you continue to fight against it. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to fix it, but I'm being reverted: [7] --NE2 02:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave a message on his talk page explaining your change. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 02:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I already told him his reversions were making things unclear...he won't listen. --NE2 02:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try, maybe a third party will convince him. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 02:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Some editors raised objections to your edits. Rather than making more and adding inflammation, could you stop and discuss? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss. "Decommissioned" is a confusing neologism when applied to roads. --NE2 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Confusing? I personally found 'deleting a highway' to be both confusing and bizarre. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Bleh. I'll take a break at least; you guys can have your badly-written articles with neologisms. Why was this such a problem, unlike "multiplex"? --NE2 22:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Vidioman/Sandbox2#Deleting Physical Infrastructure: A Discussion or Two. Two so far, more pending. In both cases, the term 'decommissioned' is preferred. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To clear things up—The first person I talked to has never heard of a highway being deleted. The second one explained that when a highway is deleted, that means that it has been torn up completely. The two edits you made that alerted my watch list were Ontario Highways 807 and 808, neither of which have been "torn up completely", simply renumbered. I have yet to see an official Canadian source to claim a highway in Canada has been deleted, yet alone the articles you edited. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Decommissioned isn't entirely wrong, though. As my discussions have shown, when presented with the statement that a highway has been deleted, people don't understand what that means. When presented with the statement that a highway has been decommissioned, they at least have the basic concept that the highway is no more. For a proper discussion, try wikiproject:roads' talk page. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Missouri

A lot of the routes were established by the Centennial Road Law of 1921. Perhaps finding the text of this law would help to reference some routes. —Scott5114↗ 07:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your edits and for reverting vandalism on Larrys Creek on October 19. I appreciate your help keeping the article presentable while it was Today's Featured Article very much. I started the Pennsylvania Route 973 and Pennsylvania Route 287 articles to get rid of red links, so any help expanding them with dates etc. would be great, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Decommissioned

Some of your edits take fifteen words when one word can be used, decommissioned. I'm reverting some of your edits. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox roads and ontario highways

NE2, i appreciate your enthusiasm and energy towards improving our articles on wikipedia, and that's a good thing. However, many Departments of Transportation and Ministries of Transportation *do* indeed use the term "decommissioned" (Ontario does, Michigan and Ohio do). As for Ontario...despite not being labelled as such anymore, all provincial roads are called Kings Highways (even secondaries, tertiaries, and 400-series roads). Since i cannot seem to get the infobox road template to work properly with your term "deleted", i propose that we either revert them back to "decommissioned", or try to work the Template:Infobox road template to accept "deleted" as proper input. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk —Preceding comment was added at 20:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Show me evidence that those DOTs/MTOs use it. I couldn't find any.
2. I did rework template:infobox road to accept the parameter "deleted", but it was reverted. Not my problem.

--NE2 20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

VA 37

I added a photo of the southern terminus to the article. While I like it, I also have a (arguably less-decent) photo of the highway itself here if you would rather add that to the article. Pictures are beneficial for a GA candidate. Also, I did what I could and have other photos there from a delightfully long trip, feel free to browse. Regarding other VA routes, there's nothing really that I can think of that requires immediate attention. Although SR 110 and SR 27 are similar to SR 37, and could be fairly well-written articles. Also, I've been meaning to ask you, how do you come across a lot of the sources (notably those for I-74 in North Carolina)? That was very interesting. --MPD ^{T / C} 03:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

BL 80 in Sacramento

You didn't have to be so defensive about it. Isn't that what the "Notes" column is used for? PhATxPnOY916 08:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

SR-125

Yes, because every single source I've seen says it will be. Here's one for starters: [8] --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah OK, [9] makes it clear that it's still SR 125. --NE2 21:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What's with not signing your Talk page comments?

Having wasted time trying to figure out who posted what on Talk:Auto trail, I am puzzled as to why a user would not sign comments and opt out of the SineBot process. Why don't you want to be identified? (Identification would make it easier to communicate with you.)--Orlady 00:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your reply said "I only don't sign the ones that are mere lists of facts." That's your choice, but considering the WP emphasis on reliable sources and the large number of phantom contributors who post legitimate-looking bogus "facts" on both article pages and talk pages, I am generally inclined to place a lot more faith in the validity of contributions whose authors identify themselves. --Orlady 02:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken regarding sourced contributions, but I also appreciate knowing who is assembling a resource (and whether it's one person or a committee) so I can interact more effectively. --Orlady 03:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Images for Suffolk CR 83 needed

I see that you've tagged the two images I've added for County Route 83 (Suffolk County, New York) for deletion. These two images are the only evidence that a one-lane railroad bridge crossed over North Ocean Avenue, and that Suffolk County was planning to extend Patchogue-Mount Sinia Road beyond New York State Route 25A, as well as build the proposed Cedar Beach Spur. I strongly suggest that you remove those tags. ----DanTD 01:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

TwinsMetsFan told me I could do that, and I tried it for another article, but it didn't work. ----DanTD 01:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, no. The article I first tried to use the "cite:map" tag for was Florida State Road 39, and when I previewed it, the tag failed so miserably I canceled the change before it could be seen. I suppose if I wanted to use evidence of the one-lane bridge in Farmingville, I could replace it with a link from "TrainsAreFun.com" (or maybe some other site), but the map citing is going to be quite difficult, especially since I'm not 100% sure who originally published it. This is one of the hazards of being trapped in Florida when you're writing about roads in New York, and all the references you need are way up in New York, and nobody you know there cares to do anything to help you out. ----DanTD 02:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just added the link to the old bridge as a reference, but the link to it's replacement is dead. I may have to get drastic and send some e-mails to Patchogue-Medford Library's history department, and ask for the source from them. ----DanTD 15:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Subway on main page

Sorry, but I didn't update it. Please see my explanation on the errors page- basically, I would rather keep the fact consistent with the relevent article. J Milburn 19:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Suffolk CR 83 map revisited

I'd just like you to know that I'm still having trouble finding out who published that map from 1978, which covered the Suffolk CR 83 extension, and it's Cedar Beach Spur. Therefore, I'd say at this point the image is irreplaceable. ----DanTD 21:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I had a similar map given to me some 25+ years ago, there are three possibilities regarding the copy of that specific map; 1)Smithtown Library's Historic Department in the Village of the Branch; 2)Patchogue-Medford Library's Historic Department, or 3)Suffolk County Historic Society's library in Downtown Riverhead. I'd try Patchogue first. ----DanTD 23:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Template:Jct/plate

Yeah, I have been messing around with it to get it to work. I think the line break problem can be fixed. As far as the 20px vs 25px, I asked the question on the ELG talk page, I think we should go with 20px on all plates, when you have a 20px plate next to a 25 px there is a noticeable height difference and it looks bad. --Holderca1 21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Right now I am just trying to get the US bannered routes to work and then I will go from there. --Holderca1 22:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have found a way to make it work for US bannered routes, I just need to see how difficult it is going to be to incorporate the state bannered routes. I just need to figure out what states use banners, for example, Texas doesn't use them on state highways. Also, what input have you been using for the bannered routes? US-Alt, US-Bus, US-Truck, US-Byp, SH-Bus??? --Holderca1 13:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't begun to work anything state specific, was just working with US routes for now to see if it is even possible. It looks like a different subpage will be needed for each state, although some will likely be able to share a subpage. I hadn't noticed that extra spacer though, apparently it only works when there are four routes, I didn't even bother to check less than that. Didn't think it would do that. I will look back and see why it is doing that. Thanks. --Holderca1 19:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I fixed the spacing issues:

• US 1 / US 90
• US 1 / US 41 / US 90

Now onto the fun task of all the state specific issues. --Holderca1 20:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it works, only problem is that I blew past the template limits. Now I just need to make it more efficient. --Holderca1 13:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it is working and not hitting template limits, but I had to cut it down to only working for the first three. Looking through some of the exit lists I didn't see any with four shields, and very few with three. I think we will be okay as it is, if we come across a lot that are affected by this then we can revisit. --Holderca1 14:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have it, still had problems with template limits at 3, (I-35 in TX is the new benchmark), I totally revamped the template, basically splitting it into 4 templates ({{jct/1}}, {{jct/2}}, {{jct/3}}, {{jct/4}}) depending on how many shields/roads are needed. The main template uses an if statement to determine which subtemplate to send it to. Making changes will be a little more tedious, since you will have to make changes across 4 templates, but due to the technical limitations, I didn't see another way to handle it. Also, this setup also enables the possibility that we would ever need more than 4. As of right now, the banner plates are only functional for TX, I will need to make specific templates for each state, some will be simpler than others. --Holderca1 16:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks . . .

. . . for notifying us of the deletion proposal. I thought the new editor did a creditable job on a first article and with the recent edits it should now survive. It is difficult, especially for a new editor, to produce a complete article all at once. The proposed deletion did however instigate efforts for immeditate improvement. Regards, Kablammo 19:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Scroll Down Box

I can't see what the problem is with the scroll down box, especially when the the article contains an extremely long table with a long list of info that not many people would be interested in. Also the other article had an old fashion map, not to many people would get to see this map at the bottom of a long table that they would never bother to scroll down. The scroll down box would allow people to see the map and the scroll down box makes the article more readable. You also have to watch you language and tone in edit summary's, I don't think comments like WHAT IN GODS NAME IS THIS is appropriate 121.44.105.216 00:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that scroll boxes are just bad web design; see for instance [10]. --NE2 01:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Alberta Highway blank.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Alberta Highway blank.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Parkways in New York City

I saw your message about proposed New York City parkways, and I was thinking of redirecting New York State Route 440 to Willowbrook Parkway, until I realized that the realingment onto the Staten Island Expressway and West Shore Expressway doesn't exactly give that credibilty. If I did that, I'd have to merge County Route 94 (Suffolk County, New York) with New York State Route 24 as if they're entirley the same road, which they aren't. ----DanTD 15:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)