Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Issues/Volume01/Issue16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
I-blank.svg US blank.svg Autoroute icone.svg
The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 16 • November 17, 2007About the Newsletter

Introduction

As we enter the holiday season, the editors of the newsletter wish our readers and fellow members a safe and happy Thanksgiving.

In this issue, a dispute over one word leads to a request for mediation, a new WikiProject is made for streets, and yet another major accident occurs on a certain disaster-prone turnpike.

In this issue
Featured story

The word "decommissioned" causes trouble

By Mitchazenia

Recently, NE2 began to change highway articles using the term decommissioned to deleted with the reason that "decommissioned" was a neologism. Many users at WP:USH and WP:USRD disagreed, reverting all edits back to the status quo. A Wikipedia: Request for Comments was filed on NE2 (for the third time). A very long discussion about what term or wording to use occurred on the RFC and on the USH talk page. User:Vidioman requested mediation for the situation, as a consenus could not be reached. User:Mr.Z-man took the case and helped calm things out. However, the discussion has become dormant as there hasn't been one comment since November 2.

How it began

On October 16, 2007, a user posted a message at Talk:Decommissioned highway. User:NE2 began by trying to find a source, but failed to. NE2, on the assumption that the term was a neologism in the context of highway designations, began looking for a new word to use. User:Scott5114 disagreed that the term was a neologism and added that the definition was an application of the dictionary definition "to revoke the the commission of". The discussion spread out between different users, figuring out where the term was used.

The major issues

On October 21, 2007, NE2 began going through different state articles and replacing the term decommissioned with the term deleted. These edits were reverted, including a change to the template, Infobox road. NE2 defended his actions, claiming that "You don't need "consensus" to improve articles. If you don't think the removal of a misleading neologism improves the article, you're wrong". After some heated discussion, several USRD members went and filed a request for comment on NE2. 5 users certified the basis of NE2's actions, with several outside views looking at: one, the NE2-bashing on IRC; two, that NE2 is working on a non-existent action; and three, that this was too minor and unimportant an issue to be worried about.

The argument was moved to WT:USRD where, a discussion ensued over the word. However, the discussion began to come together, when October 24, NE2 made the following comment:

Can we come to an agreement that we can clarify language - not replace "decommissioned" with "deleted", which I was wrong to do, but actually make it clearer exactly what happened -was the number replaced with another? Was it removed from a road that already had another number? Was it turned back to the county?

Later that same day, Scott5114 replied with the following:

I'd have no problem with Route 4 was decommissioned on August 9, 1991 and became Route C or Route 10 was decommissioned on April 4, 1919 and is currently maintained by Jasper County.

However, NE2 came up with another example, but was quickly denied. The examples began to get long, causing a 4th section on WT:USRD to open up, saying that there was no consensus to the removal of the term. The 4th section did not accomplish anything, except for a long discussion over boldness.

How did it end?

After a mediation request was created, several ideas came up for new words, such as abandoned, cancelled, eliminated and abolished. However, no consensus has been reached as of yet, and the mediation is still open. There has not been a reply in a week.

Sources: WT:HWY, WT:USRD

Project news

Article Improvement Drive
COTWnew.png
Blank shield.svg
The current U.S. Roads Article Improvement Drive article is
Interstate 96.
Last collaboration was: Interstate 79.
Join the contest to receive a barnstar!

Deletion debates

An archive of all previous debates.
Closed

At Articles for deletion:

At Templates for deletion:

Others:

Ongoing

Featured member: Mitchazenia

Mitch32contribs has been a Wikipedia editor since November 2, 2005. With over 14,000 edits, he is one of our veteran editors. He works extremely hard to maintain articles for the New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania area. He has worked very hard on this and previous issues of the newsletter. His dedication to improve articles to Good status is also appreciated.

Thank you, Mitchazenia, for all of your hard work!

Know of an editor who goes the extra mile? Nominate him or her at WP:USRD/NEWS for the next issue. Editors can only be nominated once a year.

State and national updates

WP:CASH

A discussion is underway regarding the use of postmiles in exit lists and junction lists. The discussion started at WT:CASH and moved to WT:ELG.

WP:MDSH

On 18 October, Chesapeake Bay Bridge failed its good article nomination.

WP:NYSR

New York State Route 9A became the 3000th good article on 28 October.

Work continues on the drive to improve the quality of articles on "high-priority" routes (those over 100 miles). A similar drive to improve the content and quality of all B-Class articles has begun.

WP:VASH

On 28 October, Virginia State Route 37 was promoted to good article status.

News

WikiProject U.S. Streets

By NASCAR Fan24

For a long while there has been continued discussion over the notability of city streets. The general consensus was that numbered streets were notable, while city streets were only notable if they were important to the city's history or it could be proven that they are are a major thoroughfare. Coverage of city streets, however major, was lacking, with many articles getting deleted because sources could not be provided to establish notability. However, in early November, a discussion started on the U.S. Roads WikiProject talkpage about what to do with the articles on city streets. There were three proposals: put such articles under the jurisdiction of the city's WikiProject; create a new subproject of the U.S. Roads WikiProject; or create a new WikiProject entirely. The third option was chosen, and on 10 November, WikiProject U.S. Streets was born.

Source: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads

Deadly crash shuts down Connecticut Turnpike

By Mitchazenia

The 4th disaster on the Connecticut Turnpike stretch of Interstate 95 occurred on November 2 at between Exits 74 and 75 in East Lyme. Around 10 A.M., a tanker truck went through the divider, a lone metal guard rail. The truck then ran into a tractor-trailer, with several cars then plowing into them. Three people were killed, 2 were from the cars and the third being the driver of the tanker. There were survivors, including the driver of the tractor-trailer, which was ripped open. Three people also had severe injuries. All lanes of the highway were shut down from the crash, with all southbound traffic being redirected on U.S. Route 1 at Exit 75. The accident, being near the Waterford town line, disrupted traffic conditions on the nearby Interstate 395 and U.S. Route 1. A nearby car had noticed the tanker driving erratically, swerving from the high-speed lane into the median. Parts of the road were damaged, and with cleanup, the road was not re-opened until the next morning.

Connecticut governor, M. Jodi Rell says that this accident would jump-start necessary improvements for Interstate 95, but state senators mention that it took this accident to for Governor Rell to start. Senators claim that Rell neglected to work on it, and the road is too narrow for comfort, being only 2 lanes wide. Area legislators will meet on November 19 and discuss the major situation.

Source: Crash Took Place 'So Fast' - The Hartford Courant

From the editors

Be part of the turnaround... become part of the solution! Become active in highways again. Let's save the articles from being inactive and destroyed.

The editors of the newsletter would like to hear from you, the reader. What do you like about the current format? What should be changed? Removed? Added? Your comments are needed.

Lastly, remember that this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue released on December 15. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Contributors to this issue

Issue 15 | Issue 016 | Issue 17