Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads

/Disambiguation completion list

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

Articles for Deletion

I am about to nominate a few articles for deletion, just wanted to run it through here, maybe I am missing something, they look like surface streets in Plano, Texas and Dallas, Texas. Plano Parkway (Plano, Texas), Parker Road (Plano, Texas), Midway Road (Plano, Texas), Lovers Lane, Dallas, Texas, Knox Street, Dallas, Texas, Frankford Road, Dallas, Texas and Midway Road, Dallas, Texas. None of these are associated with any state or county highway, if they are, they fail to mention it. Are any of these worth keeping? I am a bit surprised they haven't found their way to AfD yet. --Holderca1 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there wasn't a response, I have nominated them all at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frankford Road, Dallas, Texas. --Holderca1 17:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent articles for deletion

I have solicited a response to recent listings at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. You are invited to come participate. --Iamunknown 05:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island Route 11; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newark Airport Interchange --NE2 12:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The "States traversed" section

Copied from Talk:U.S. Route 20:

So... what's the balance between "a summary of U.S. Route 20 in X" and "not enough content"?

Thanks! —Rob (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dutchess County Route 33 AfD

Dutchess County Route 33 is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutchess County Route 33. Please review the article and participate. Alansohn 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to abstain from the AfD since I don't want to encourage a slippery slope of more road AfDs, but honestly wouldn't it be a good idea to draw the inherent notability line at state highways and above? I think the politician guidelines in WP:BIO set a good precedent: members of nationwide and statewide legislatures (thus Interstates, US routes, and state routes) are considered notable, while local politicians (thus county-level routes and city streets) must have an additional claim to fame to merit their own article. Krimpet 03:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

Due to the number of contributors to this project taking a big hit following SRNC, I think we need to look at some consolidation. I am proposing we merge WP U.S. Interstate Highways and WP U.S. Highways into this project. This would consolidate conversations to a central location. It would cut down on a lot of administrative tasks between the three. WP:IH and WP:USH have less highways combined than most of the states. --Holderca1 11:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know how I feel about that. I'm leaning toward opposing this...but I'd like to hear from other editors on this first before I really take a stand. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea to me, since Interstates and U.S. Highways are just state or local highways with funny-looking shields. Other than the involvement of the FHWA and AASHTO, there's nothing that differentiates the process of writing them from that of any other U.S. road. --NE2 21:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see what the difference would be one way or the other. For me at least, I treat all highway articles the same for the bulk of my editing. The individual state WikiProjects (and USH and IH) just deal with little idiosynchracies between the states. -- NORTH ^talk 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the benefit is that we'd have a centralized place to discuss. --NE2 21:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why not just redirect the talk pages for IH and USH to here? --MPD ^{T / C} 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I oppose this vehemently. An article on an Interstate has a distinctly different composition than that of a U.S. route. For the most part, the "centralized discussion" argument is moot: most of the discussion already occurs here anyway. It's not as if consolidation will lead to more getting done. Someone still has to make edits to work on the articles, and if the same amount of editors are present, it will take just as long to make the edits whether there is consolidation or not. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What would be the difference between the article on Interstate 68 and the article on U.S. Route 48 had it not been redesignated in 1989? --NE2 22:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I also don't understand what difference there is between the composition of an Interstate and a U.S. Route. In my opinion they should be the composed the same if they aren't that way already. I personally believe all road articles should have the same basic structure. --Holderca1 14:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I support redirecting the talk pages as MPD suggested, centralized discussion is a good thing, but there's enough differences between writing about Interstates and US routes that it's a good thing to have separate style guides and such. Krimpet 23:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent policy changes limiting primary sources

There have been recent changes in the merging of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS into WP:ATT, along with related changes at WP:N. One thing that may affect geographic projects is the tightening of the requirement for multiple secondary sources for all articles. Many geographic articles are created from a single primary source like census data or topo maps. Technically, this would subject these articles to deletion. If you have not checked these policies lately, you should. And be sure to check the supporting discussions. Remember WP policies and guidelines are supposed to incorporate a broad consensus. Dhaluza 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that any commercial map that shows the road can be added to the references, this "threat" has no teeth. I also don't see anything at Wikipedia:Attribution that matches what you say. --NE2 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT states the following: "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Route descriptions and such that rely on maps and topos are perfectly valid in this regard; they use maps to back up descriptive claims that can easily be backed up by consulting the map. Krimpet 00:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox road

The new maintenance parameter puts a redlink on every state infobox that doesn't yet have the necessary template added. Not to mention that I don't think it's such a good idea, since some states have several different agencies that maintain the roads (NJ and MD come to mind. I'm going to revert again – if you find a way to do it so redlinks don't appear, then I'll let it stay, but I'd prefer the discussion happened on-wiki next time. -- NORTH ^talk 22:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, sometimes some discussions won't happen on-wiki. It is, in fact, sometimes easier to have a talk on IRC, have a drink, and implement the change, since it can be implemented quicker and can be done without straw polls.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 22:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's done behind the scenes, then there's no way you can show the changes reflect consensus. Imagine if MPD and I decided to hold the discussion on WT:USRD/ELG off-wiki.

I changed my mind about reverting, mainly because I noticed that it's not falsely claiming the Garden State Parkway is maintained by NJDOT. Just next time you make a change to a template, don't leave me with broken infoboxes for so long. (You could have avoided that by creating the sub-templates first, then changing {{infobox road}}.) And I guess this is fine since once it's implemented properly, it's a relatively minor change, but any major changes to the project need to have on-wiki discussion, so that (a) everyone can participate, and (b) we have some sort of discussion to point to afterwards. Telling me three users discussed it on IRC isn't enough. -- NORTH ^talk 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the only reason the line isn't showing up on Garden State Parkway is because it uses the "highway_name" parameter. I have a feeling we're still going to run into problems with regular unnamed highways that aren't maintained by the main agency. NJ 73 for instance is NJDOT-maintained for most of its length, but county maintained near its eastern terminus. -- NORTH ^talk 22:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems can be solved if we change it so that if you use the maint= parameter, it supercedes the default "maint" template for the state. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the time at the moment, and I'm only 75% sure I'd know how.

I have a test case at User:Northenglish/Sandbox3. It's the NJ 17 infobox, but I added in the line |maint=New Jersey Turnpike Authority. If someone could fix {{infobox road}} so that my test case read that it was maintaned by the Turnpike Authority instead of NJDOT, that would get rid of (I think) all my qualms about the change. -- NORTH ^talk 04:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This maint parameter should be hidden unless explicitly called. Some states have numbered routes that are not maintained by the state DOT. Why can't this new parameter be made optional? --Polaron | Talk 05:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that's what I'm saying. I've tried doing the fix I proposed above with no success. -- NORTH ^talk 06:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've discovered a problem my proposed fix won't solve. What are we to do with an article like County Route 527 (New Jersey), which is maintained by the highway departments of god knows how many counties? A list like that shouldn't be in the infobox, but the infobox already uses state=NJ County with a redlink for Template:Infobox road/NJ County maint ready and waiting. -- NORTH ^talk 06:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the template is fixed, just put maint=[[Whoever maintains it here]], no need for the creation of a bunch of subpages. --Holderca1 20:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

3dis and browse boxes

Since most 3dis are intra-state, I'm going to start moving multi-state 3di browse boxes into the infobox (there's 2 at most for any given 3di). They're essentially treated like state roads, which all use Infobox Road or a variation thereof, and the browse info won't be too big for the section. See Interstate 280 (Illinois-Iowa). —Rob (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. For 3dis that are intra-state, it's fine; a number of state WPs do this anyway. But having two browse rows in the infobox the way that version of I-280 just looks awkward. -- NORTH ^talk 22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Having to scroll down to the end of the page (or hit "End", alternatively) every time I want to move on seems pretty awkward too, though. —Rob (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, your edit summary said something like "consistency of sorts", but your comment doesn't have much to do with consistency.

I think what would be consistent would be for all single-state (whether state, US, or Interstate) routes to have it in the infobox, and multi-state routes to have it at the bottom. To me, the issue with having it the way you currently do on I-280 is that it's not clear what those links are. I know it seems like common sense, but it's missing that header, (i.e. the line that says Illinois state highway system on Illinois Route 5. For multi-state routes, having it at the bottom in a box that's labeled "browse numbered routes" takes care of that. -- NORTH ^talk 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends what context - I'm thinking about "position on the page" and you're thinking about "easily identifiable as a state-level browse". The multi-state ones, with 10+ states, I can understand leaving off the top of the page. But I would go so far as to edit {{Infobox road}} so it says "Browse state routes" in a row above the previous and next routes (for multistate 3dis only) if the browse parameter is not empty.

I'd even be willing to wager that that particular edit isn't all that difficult, but it would take more time to explain why than it's worth. —Rob (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be a way inside the browse parameter to include a header row like that (in other words, without editing any templates). It might be worth playing in a sandbox. If it looks okay, I'd be down with it.

Keep in mind that I'm only one person though, and right now consensus is to put browsing on the bottom for multi-state routes (no matter how few "multi" is). -- NORTH ^talk 01:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think even that's necessary (explanation referred above follows, I ran a mile in the intervening time); the browse parameter isn't used for multiple-state 2di interstates, and it isn't used for any intrastate interstates. This leaves multistate 3di interstates, of which the entire set spans 2 states at most, except for I-275 right now and I-355 (possibly) in the future. So that's adding 2 rows 99.9% of the time, and 3 rows once. I'll try it out and see how it works... there's always the ability to revert. —Rob (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

↓

Of course, the fact I need a piece of paper and an object diagram to weed through the browse structure might mean this'll take some time... —Rob (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I put two browses in the infobox on Loop (Texarkana) a ways back with header rows. --Holderca1 02:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like problem solved to me. -- NORTH ^talk 04:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bad stylistic solution, but it's using two different ways to show the browse boxes; previous_road/previous_type/next_type/next_route, and browse. This is fine because it's the infobox for state highways of Texas, but for Interstates it's not going to work because we don't assign states to Interstate infoboxes.

However, it should theoretically be possible to manually force a row into the browse box. But for whatever reason (I'm still thinking about it) it doesn't work that way. —Rob (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Who says we don't have state browse boxes in interstate infoboxes? See Interstate 37. --Holderca1 16:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That's got potential. It looks like it depends on creating something similar to {{Infobox TX State Highway/Interstatebrowse}} for the states affected by multistate 3dis... —Rob (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, I made it work. For people who like blazing trails, see the Texas version, or the Illinois version under the Infobox Road template (only 49 states to go...) -- {{Infobox road/IL browse2}} and possibly associated templates {{Infobox road/IL list link}} and {{Infobox road/browse no route}}. On a related note, editing this thing so closely resembles spaghetti code it's not even funny. :-) —Rob (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

IRC and this project

Refactored to WT:USRD/IRC.

Sorting categories at the Commons?

I've been playing with the different road categories at the Commons, and I think I may have a way to make them little more organized and presentable to people coming in from the new Commons links. How about sorting them so the shield comes first, then a map of the route, then all photos of the route sorted roughly west-east/south-north, then all other miscellaneous media after that? (See commons:Category:Interstate 76 (east) for an example.) This would make it easier for the viewer to get an idea of the sights along the route in order, and make it easier to determine where along the route a picture was taken. Krimpet 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got a separate question about moving images from here to Commons... How does one go about actually doing this? Is it enough to just upload a new version with a {{pd-username-en}} tag? Or do we have to actually transwiki the image pages here? -- NORTH ^talk 07:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is pretty simple, just upload the image to the commons, then place {{nowcommons}} on the image here and that's it, an admin will make there way to the image here and delete it eventually. --Holderca1 15:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Our own peer review section?

I've noticed that enough articles coming out of this project and various subprojects are heading to peer review and/or GA noms.

However, the community-at-large seems to have some difficulty with some of these road articles (see this example) due to unfamiliarity with the subject.

Perhaps we could follow the example of so many other projects and have a peer review section of our own? We wouldn't be the first transportation-related project to do so (there's already one for rail). I've found peer reviews by people specializing in a subject, particularly one on which so many people are doing so much good work, to be more informed and helpful than ones that come from the community as a whole. Plus it would reduce the backlog on peer review a little bit.

Anyone else? Daniel Case 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm game with something like this. I'll create the page ASAP.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 18:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Page created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review, as this has to do with all highways/roads.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is probably a good idea, but it's probably important that we do some regular peer review as well. Otherwise, we'll think an article is perfect just because it meets all of our standards, only to have those standards questioned later on because they don't meet Wikipedia standards, like at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 37. -- NORTH ^talk 23:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a tiered process will work, where articles are sent first to the Highways peer review and then, once those issues have been addressed, to the normal peer review. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent plan. -- NORTH ^talk 23:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD for List of highways numbered 888

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways numbered 888. The list consists of three items that are all red links. People familiar with the roads might want to create reasonable stub articles to remove the red links. --Polaron | Talk 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to comments not related to the actual AFD nom and more in the direction of naming conventions, a meeting will be called on IRC. The date of this meeting has yet to be determined.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The meeting has been tentatively scheduled for this Friday at 9:30 PM EDT (6:30 PM PDT). An alternate date has been tentatively set for this Saturday at the same time. Please post here with any concerns or comments. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason it has to be Friday or Saturday night? Nothing against Wikipedia or anything, but I rarely have it my weekend evening plans. Not to mention the NCAA tourney is on this weekend, so I won't make it to the meeting, I will discuss the issue on the wiki side. --Holderca1 13:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of us are busy the other nights. If enough people can't make it we could consider holding duplicate sessions. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

All the more reason to hold the main discussion on-wiki. -- NORTH ^talk 04:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

All the major discussions from now on will be held on IRC. You are always welcome to join. IRC supports Windows, Mac, and Linux. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If we actually had time to devote to discussions, then I could care less where discussions are held. But we have more important issues to take care of, like a dozen inactive projects, countless stub articles that are a "random article" click away from AFD, etc., and any wiki time spent solely on discussions isn't fixing either of the two. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my snide remark. This is certainly one the cases where an IRC discussion is fine. We've all weighed in at the AfD, and it's pretty clear that some sort of change is in order. If the "select few" want to discuss it on IRC to decide whether the naming convention is going to by Highways numbered X, Roads numbered X, or even 888 (highway) that was proposed recently, I couldn't care less.

But no, Rschen. All minor discussion can be held on IRC. All major discussion must be held on the wiki. That's what everyone save the three of you said on WT:USRD/IRC. -- NORTH ^talk 05:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how it takes any more time to discuss here rather than IRC, the discussion itself may take longer, but it doesn't take any longer from an individuals viewpoint. It's not like you post a reply and then sit there refreshing the screen until someone replies, you go edit something else, check your watchlist from time to time, go back if there has been a change. --Holderca1 14:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Some of us have lives outside of this. I can't see how any issue is so urgent that it would take too much time to debate it here over the span of a day or two. --Sable232 16:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New archival bot

Due to the loss of Werdnabot, we are switching to User:MiszaBot II so that automatic archiving continues. Any projects still with Werdnabot code are encouraged to go to User:MiszaBot II and request archival. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Another question about the new maint parameter

Now that we've gotten all the kinks out, there's still one more question that's left unanswered. Just how much information are we planning on including there. For example, Interstate 78 in New Jersey is maintained by:

• DRJTBC for the westernmost 3 miles (more than just the bridge approach)
• NJDOT for most of the highway
• NJTA on the Newark Bay Extension
• PANYNJ on the Holland Tunnel approaches

How many of those should be included in the infobox? All of them? Just the DOT and the Turnpike Authority? The Bridge Commission, but not the Port Authority? -- NORTH ^talk 17:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Include all of them. See Interstate 476 for two, but generally it's the same idea.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've already included two on several other New Jersey routes; I was just checking whether all four of these were worthy of inclusion. -- NORTH ^talk 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ridge Route

I have rewritten and expanded Ridge Route. Before I take it to peer review, can I have some advice and comments? Thank you. --NE2 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've taken it to Wikipedia:Peer review/Ridge Route. --NE2 02:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

States that don't have a subproject yet

The following is copied from User talk:Holderca1. The discussion started when it was proposed to create a Louisiana WikiProject, and I thought, since there's not demand for it yet, to create a single general state highway WikiProject for all the states that don't have them yet. I didn't mean for the discussion to take off quite yet, but it did, so I copied it here. -- NORTH ^talk 02:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than creating a Louisiana WikiProject, I was thinking it might be a good idea to create a WikiProject for all the state highways that don't have their own. That way, we can standardize everything in the meantime while we wait for demand to increase for a separate wikiproject. I'll probably propose it on WT:USRD once I finish the LA shield images and the NJ infoboxes. -- NORTH ^talk 19:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Then what is USRD for? As stated on the project page, it explicitly states "To some extent, standardizing the state highway articles for which a WP does not exist yet." USRD already does just that. We do not need the new WikiProject. If you guys do propose it, be prepared to be shot down.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 02:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Then to what extent do we need any state WikiProject? How does WP:USRD provide any guidelines for creating state highway articles the way WP:NJSCR does? -- NORTH ^talk 02:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, state projects that are currently inactive shouldn't exist as standalone projects. USRD does provide a structure; however, it is through the subproject template and not the main project page. There's nothing stopping anyone from copying the structure from the template to the project page, though. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, to further explain, here is an excerpt from an IRC conversation:

TwinsMetsFan: since every project should follow the subproject template, why not make a structure on USRD and then reserve the state pages for tweaks to that structure?
vishwin60: dunno
vishwin60: every project is different
vishwin60: especially MD
TwinsMetsFan: that's why if we really want to have consistency, and shut the others up at the same time, we should put a skeleton up
TwinsMetsFan: and let states warp it however they want
TwinsMetsFan: within reason
vishwin60: good idea
vishwin60: that would emphasize the statement "To some extent, standardizing the state highway articles for which a WP does not exist yet."
TwinsMetsFan: exactly
TwinsMetsFan: USRD is no longer a shell parent - we need to emphasize that
vishwin60: true
TwinsMetsFan: we are on the verge of massive changes, and all that remains is for someone to budge or say something before i spring it on them
TwinsMetsFan: after all, imho, the line between "consensus" and "be bold" is becoming very blurry
vishwin60: oh yeah, from very recent discussions
TwinsMetsFan: right
TwinsMetsFan: between people who read policies like the Bible and others who want to discuss adding a period to the end of a sentence, consensus and being bold is not matching up
TwinsMetsFan: the policy freaks don't have consensus but they do it anyway
TwinsMetsFan: the discussion lovers inhibit boldness by demanding consensus
vishwin60: so then IAR could be invoked???
TwinsMetsFan: based on everything we presented in the newsletter last week, we're almost to that point
vishwin60: ignoring them?
TwinsMetsFan: no, something has to be done, and if it means ignoring all rules, then so be it
TwinsMetsFan: If the rules prevent you from improving or MAINTAINING Wikipedia, ignore them (emphasis mine)
vishwin60: that's definite and indefinite
TwinsMetsFan: right, but i think it applies in the USRD structure case
TwinsMetsFan: heh, to answer North's second question, may as well use the idea i presented up above
TwinsMetsFan: with the flexible structure
TwinsMetsFan: er, "flexible" structure

Hope that helps.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 02:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If WP:USRD can serve as this proposed state highways project, I'm all for that. In it's current state, I don't see that, but it's certainly possible that we could tweak it so it could.

Essentially, yes, that Subproject Template would work, and should be moved somewhere more easily accessible so that (for ex.) Louisiana editors can easily find and refer to it, even though there's not a separate Louisiana WikiProject and guideline. If this is no longer just a shell parent, the project page should probably be cleaned up quite a bit, as this is the first I've heard of this. -- NORTH ^talk 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There are differences between states and how their DOTs do things, so it makes sense to have variants in the "rules". --NE2 02:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes have been made as detailed above. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO USRD should have a basic structure, but should not hinder the creation of subprojects (as long as there are enough users of course. ) But let's discuss this tonight at meeting. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The project page looks good so far. -- NORTH ^talk 06:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

March 16 meeting recap

Here's a quick overview of the topics discussed during the March 16 IRC meeting.

• Consensus advocated status quo on the disambiguation page naming convention.
• The proposal to demote inactive/struggling WikiProjects to task forces of USRD was introduced and unanimously supported. Kentucky and Utah will be demoted to task forces, with another three projects at risk of being downgraded as well. Projects that are demoted can be re-promoted at a later date if the state of the project improves. See WP:USRD/SUB.
• The Illinois routebox was converted to use Infobox road. The browsing for some infoboxes now needs repairing.
• Recent changes to the USRD project page were supported.

For the complete log, see Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Internet Relay Chat/Logs/2007-03-16. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why were none of the proposals from the AfD for List of highways brought up during the meeting? The only options mentioned were Route X, Highway X, etc... which were all stated as not viable options during the AfD. I still stand firm that the word list needs to be taken out, they aren't lists, they are dab pages. I still don't understand how "Highways numbered X" doesn't work, it was never addressed in the meeting. --Holderca1 07:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, there was talk about the Texas highways and grouping them, but I was having trouble following the conversation. First off, What is INNA?? I would be glad to address the problem if I knew what the problem was. --Holderca1 08:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason no other proposals were brought up was because there was a great deal of support for the current naming convention ("List of highways numbered X"). INNA is the Infoboxes and Navigation task force, which sets standards for infoboxes and browsing across USRD. The portion directly related to the Texas discussion last night is Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Infoboxes and Navigation/Navigation#Precedence, which sets guidelines for the browsing order. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Texas browsing is that it treats Interstate and U.S. highways as entirely separate things. Ideally, the browsing on Texas State Highway 9 would go from SH 8 to IH 10, the browsing on Interstate 10 in Texas would go from SH 9 to SH 10, and the browsing on Texas State Highway 10 would go from IH 10 to SH 11.

I think all the Loops, spurs, Farm to Market roads, etc. should stay as is, though. -- NORTH ^talk 19:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 100% on both points. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

But Interstates and U.S. Highways are entirely seperate things, we do have two seperate projects for them after all. It just seemed the most logical to seperate them. How does one browse just the interstates of Texas? It doesn't make any sense to me to combine them all, can you point me to the discussion on the topic? --Holderca1 00:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been the status quo for a long time, they need to be combined, ever since the days of WP:CASH in 2005. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So regardless if it makes any sense, just because it was done that way by California it should be done every where else? Sorry, but WP:TXSH does not fall under WP:CASH. Also, California doesn't have duplicates, in Texas, you can have a state highway and an interstate with the same number. I will buy off on combining Interstate and U.S. Highways, but State Highways will remain seperate. --Holderca1 02:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There are other states, like Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New York that duplicate routes as well. Under INNA, they will be combined, and that policy is not to be changed unless a suttle discussion is enacted. Projects under USRD follow policies, and TXSH is no exception.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 02:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

INNA has only existed 2 months, TXSH has been doing their browse this way for much longer. Until someone directs me to a loction where this has been discussed at, then TXSH will continue to browse this way. You can't make up a guideline without a discussion, show me the discussion. --Holderca1 03:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you do not have the authority to arbitrarily declare that TX will not follow the guidelines set in INNA. Furthermore, you can look up the discussion yourself. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not touching this with a ten and half foot pole, only to say that it got inappropriately ugly really quickly. -- NORTH ^talk 03:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The main thing is, Holderca1, you work it out with INNA. You don't just declare that your project will no longer be subject to WP:USRD. Last I heard, Texas roads were U.S. roads. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, my comment was directed more towards you, Rschen, than Holderca. The "discussion" here doesn't really scream consensus to me, despite what the section header says. Thus, I think Texas should be allowed to keep its browsing system until there's a clear consensus to apply INNA unilaterally on all the states.

I think there is some justification to doing things the INNA way in states like New Jersey and California that go out of their way to not assign the same number to two classes of highways, and to doing things the "Texas" way for states that do. -- NORTH ^talk 06:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See, this was the rationale behind the now-no-longer-in-existence Illinois Route Box... it's a list of Illinois Routes, not Every Route In Illinois. If it was another route (and in this case, I did lump together U.S. Routes and Interstate Routes), that's what See also was for. In case you managed to get U.S. 24 and I-24 confused or something silly. —Rob (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

IL is somewhat odd there, since US and I routes are allowed to be in the same state. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am just failing to see the point of having separate subprojects if everything has to follow what US Roads says to the letter. And no, not all Texas roads are US Roads, they are roads that are in the US, but they are not US Roads. If you are wondering why the number of contributors for this project is suffering, here is where you need to look. Rschen, neither you, nor anyone else owns this wikiproject, and telling someone they don’t have the “authority” to do something is not going to get people to rush back to help. Also, see your comment here: [1], “actually, if CA even decides to follow the ELG.” So, let me get this straight, everything here is optional for CA, but mandatory for everyone else? I had always thought that separate wikiprojects existed because every state’s highway system is different, with this being a perfect example. It makes sense for CA to browse this way, because CA treats interstate, U.S., and state highways the same and this is indicated by the way they number their highways. Texas doesn’t do it this way, this from the TXDOT web site:

State Highway System (SHS) The highways in the state built and maintained by TxDOT.
Each category of highways is its own system within the State Highway System, i.e.
Farm to Market Road system, State Highway Loop system, etc. [2]

Getting back to my issues with this project as a whole, I think we need to change how we go about getting a consensus on things around here. One editor saying, "this looks good to me" and another saying "yeah, me too" is not a discussion, nor is it consensus. We should do it by state, a consensus (say 2/3) of the active state wikiprojects is required to pass a guideline, policy, etc… This will prevent a mass of editors from a particular state and influencing the overall project. This project has been broken for a long while, even before SRNC, and if it is the hope to get the support back up, then changes need to be made on how this project is ran. --Holderca1 09:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I see your point, but considering the current state of U.S. Roads as a whole (which is not good), sometimes "be bold" has to trump "consensus". As for Texas being excluded from INNA...Washington is somewhat excluded since the SR numbering is derivative (SR 102 coming from US 101 and such), so it's not as if there can't be exceptions. Even so, their "derivative" browsing (that is, the browsing of the base routes) follows INNA as far as I've seen.

Ample time was given to discuss everything that has been included as part of INNA. The existence of the page was not made a secret; in fact, it was well advertised, both in the newsletter and on this page. Since no one commented against INNA, they were made guidelines through silence equals consent. The place to discuss exemption would be at WT:USRD/INNA. I'm willing to listen, but the bottom line is that some standard has to be in place to fall back on. The same applies for the new structure on the USRD page. Why is it necessary? Simple; so people don't start WikiProjects with no support simply to establish a standard. Too many people have done that already and the result is that there are inactive projects with no editors. Most of the Canada road WPs have been declared inactive; two of ours have become task forces and three more are on their way there.

The point of separate, state-level subprojects is to increase collaboration among editors with a similar focus, that being editing state highways in that state. These editors may also discover a flaw in the USRD structure, and can modify their structure to match. Bottom line, I'm not against WikiProjects for every state - I'm against WikiProjects that will have no support and no dedicated editors.

The discussion that occurred above could have been done a bit more civil; that I admit. But the reality is that tensions are going to run high here right now because of the sorry state of USRD collectively. The reason standards are being established on the USRD level is primarily for the states that have no WikiProject and have no hope of getting one anytime soon. Yes, these standards do apply to the subprojects that exist and are already well-established, but we can be more lenient in that department.

Holderca1, your contributions to Wikipedia are far too important to quit over something like this. My suggestion would be to bring the browsing issue up at WT:USRD/INNA and we'll take care of it there. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay, politics. This is why I hardly even do anything on here anymore. Too many people are trying to create too much control over projects that they assert they have jurisdiction over. It's all a bunch of crap. And as far as the demotion period, that's just stupid. MISH just finished creating articles for all the state highways a month or two ago, so of course a bunch of them are stubs. They'll get worked on eventually, but the gavel wielding and contract manifestations just make it more of a hostile environment in which to work. I think to the detriment of Wikipedia as a whole, not just the roads project. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 16:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

To compare the projects that were demoted to MISH is giving too much credit to the demoted projects. Kentucky and Utah have seen no activity in months, they no longer have any active editors, and key issues (such as the existence of three infoboxes for Kentucky) have been ignored. The reason they were demoted was that at the current rate, they won't be worked on eventually.

It is not necessarily a demotion "period" - if active editors are not found after the generic to-do list (found at WP:USRD/TD) is completed by this project, then it will remain a task force for the foreseeable future, as there'd be no point in making it a non-supported (by editors) WikiProject again. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That may be, but when I make edits anymore I don't even think about the U.S. Roads project. I'm here to contribute useful information to articles, not wade through wikiprojects to find pages that list standards for every freaking thing we can nitpick about. The politics is getting thick and the reason I starred myself on the active contributors list is because I want to get the newsletter in case another deletion issue comes up that needs shutting down. I understand the need for consistency and standards across certain subjects, but reading the discussion and some other comments, widespread imposition of "consensus by silence" is the wrong way to do it. I agree with a poster above that while the state highway projects are subsets of the USRD project, the sub projects were created to deal with the nuances that deviate from the prevailing national standard. Either way, I'll leave you guys to writing the "standards" and I'll stick to contributing to articles whenever I see fit. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 18:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll also point out that my counterargument to your "consensus by silence" is the second section on that very same page. The fact that issues are being arisen here, now, indicates that there probably wasn't genuine consensus to begin with. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll start off by apologizing, I may have failed to keep my cool, but it wasn't this isolated instance that set me off, it has been brewing for several weeks. IMHO posting on this talk page about a guideline is not enough, it needs to be posted on all the subproject subpages as well, not everyone involved in the subprojects monitors this talk page, nor are they members of this project. At least during the SRNC, every project was notified and every individual was notified via talk pages. Also, on another issue, why is the juction table recently placed on the project page drastically different than what we discussed at ELG? I understand the difference in the two, but the appearance of the two should basically be the same, just without the exit column. I just don't understand why we need to nitpick every little thing, it just makes it more difficult to keep everything within those standards. I have always believed that if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it. --Holderca1 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It took three long hours to post to everyone's page (and taht was before we had more people joining). It is simply not practical to do that again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

INNA was also mentioned prominently in the newsletter, but I see your point. Then again, I wasn't aware that any state used a different browsing system until recently. I'm not following you on the junction table...the design of it is the same as the ELG but without the exit column.

In terms of the last comment, sure, the Texas WP isn't broken, the New York WP isn't broken, the Michigan WP isn't broken, but there are plenty of WPs that are. Those are the projects that these standards are aimed at. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See the Indiana State Road 2 article under the Road(s) column, the street names are listed below the numbered route rather than all on the same line, also, I can't remember what we said on colors, but I thought we said no colors. --Holderca1 20:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The junction table predates the ELG in both the color department and the display of roads. The table began as a junction list contained within Template:Routeboxny, with colors derived from Template:Routeboxny/legend. When the decision was made to go to infobox road, the junctions were moved to their own table, designed in a way that no information would be lost. After some discussion (somewhere in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes/Archive 1), it was decided to convert the table into a template. This template then spread to numerous other states and, by request of another editor, I redesigned the template to look similar to the-then fledgling ELG. This is the only reason why the two seem similar, as the junction table was not based on the ELG, nor was the ELG based on the table. For this reason, the items discussed in the ELG discussion have no bearing on the junction table, a point that was agreed to during the ELG discussion. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have advocated against colors for a long time, mostly after I figured out what sort of an accessibility problem it poses. Also, I discourage forcing readers to refer to legends, similar to maps created in the Maps Task Force. —Rob (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting everyone on the same page

Let's put the actual issue aside for a while and focus on the basics.

• Firstly (and yes that's a word :)) I apologize if I was uncivil or a bit harried above.
• Secondly, there are simply too many editors and too many projects to keep notifying them of every little change that happens at USRD. Too many of them are inactive too, so it's not worth notifying everyone. That's why we created the Template:Project U.S. Roads and the newsletter. Thus, it needs to be your responsibility to participate in discussions and to remain aware. It's just like in high school, teachers have too many students and can't pressure each one about missing assignments, right? It's the student's responsibility to do their work. If you're not aware of discussions that you want to be a part of, then there's nothing we can't do (we can't read your mind and know that you wanted to be a part of that discussion...) I personally believe that we have thus gone above and beyond the call of a WikiProject to keep their members informed (as most projects, to my knowledge, do not have that many mechanisms of keeping their members informed). Another tool you have is your watchlist- a main page you should have on your watchlist is this one. If nothing else, this one. This is where it happens. Even furthermore, we have our own IRC channel. This is one of two that do (the other is hurricanes, I believe). Thus, we can collaborate in real time. Those that are against it, I would advise you to try it out before you simply reject it. On a personal level, I did not want to join IRC. However, after joining it, I would never go back. You never quite get the full picture of things on Wiki.
• Thirdly, WP:USRD is not a shell project anymore. Sure, I created it as one. However, that is no longer the case. WP:USRD is the head of the U.S. Roads area, and it was also founded before about 75% of the other highway projects (only IH, USH, CASH, CACR, WASH, and KYSH predate this, if I remember correctly). However, even those projects need to follow these guidelines decided here for uniformity across teh board.
• Fourthly, when you have a concern about a policy or guideline, you don't refuse to follow it. You work to change it. For example, you don't just send to WP:MFD the policy WP:3RR just because you disagree with it. You go to the talk page of WP:3RR and work to have it changed. Furthermore, you don't constantly complain about 3RR, for that gets nothing done. You work to change it and cooperate with other people.
• Fifthly, there are no leaders at a highway project. We should never have allowed that from the start. It's just like how administrators have no special privileges in the determination of consensus. I'm strongly considering removing every occurrence of "leader" from every road project... because that is misleading. There are no official "leaders". But then how do you lead? You lead by doing work. You lead by putting in the work and by participating in the consensus discussions. "Leaders" don't get special privileges in discussions. "Leaders" cannot and do not arbitrarily decide to rebel (with or without their project) against a policy just because they do not like it.
• Sixthly, the turnout at the IRC meeting Friday was downright shameful. We got 8 editors, and I commend them for that. However, we have over 100 editors. Assuming there are 100, that means that 8% of them participated. And considering that at least 5% more were complaining about the project's use of IRC and blatantly refusing to join in on the discussions (and then later complaining about not having any say in important issues), that is downright shameful.
• Seventhly, whether you realize it or not, WP:USRD is in deep trouble. Did anyone actually notice the AFD's? We barely squeaked by on a few of those. The whole project is simply in a state of trash right now. Yes, a state of trash. 22 projects out of the 37 that we have are in poor shape. That is over 50%. We have only 1 FA out of over 10000 articles. That is extremely sad. If this doesn't alarm you, then quite frankly, you should not be a roads editor.
• I'll start with that for now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• And we're going to combine IH and USH and put them in as part of USRD, right? —Rob (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know at this point... but I think that we need to get everyone on the same team before we discuss something that fundamental. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Now's not the time to discuss that. We have more important issues to settle first. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

IRC should never be used to make decisions. Either discuss it on-wiki or don't discuss it at all and edit war over it, but don't discuss it on IRC and then claim there's consensus. --SPUI (T - C) 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC) This message is brought to you by the leaders of #wikipedia-en-roads-us, who know that no one listens to SPUI, and hope you will be turned to their side.

Holy crap... that's something I never thought I'd see. I'm not sure whether to be amused or frightened. -- NORTH ^talk 21:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, we have an SPUI sighting. I wouldn't mind seeing some of our editors of the past all coming back, perhaps we can reach out to those that are still active on Wiki and see exactly why they left the project and what needs to be done to see them return. My statements where I states that Texas articles wouldn't follow was in response to the statement that they needed to change and that it wasn't open for discussion. I think there needs to be some flexiblity in all of our guidelines, do they really need to hard and fast rules? It's been a few years since high school, but a teacher can't expect the students to do an assignment if they don't know about it. As far as IRC goes, I tend to real life before I tend to anything on here. My evenings are dedicated to my family. I come on here when I have the chance, but trying to be here at a specific time is extremely difficult, and even if I can make it, the change that I can stay on for an extended period of time is unlikely. --Holderca1 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's so unbelievable. Only 8% of editors have the time to drop everything and sit in a chat room to discuss this stuff. And I thought the bullshit over at the auto project was bad. --Sable232 22:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That comment is simply not acceptable. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts, in no particular order.

• I somewhat agree with Rschen that there's no need to announce every little change on individual users' talk pages. That's what a watchlist is for. That being said, every little change should be announced here at WT:USRD. These two comments [3] [4] don't really make the cut. There's nothing there implying that Texas (and potentially other states) will have to change their standards. When I saw those, I just assumed they were trying to implement what was already decided (i.e. not changing anything), and to help out with browsing on states that don't already have it in place (which Texas did/does).
• I'm glad that WP:USRD is not a shell project anymore, and it's more than capable of doing the job of the "other state highways" WikiProject I proposed. But just because the shell you created two years ago predates most of the state WPs doesn't mean that it's automatically the end-all-be-all. The active state WPs (i.e. Texas) do predate the non-shell-ness of USRD.
• I agree wholeheartedly that there are no leaders.
• Please shut up about IRC already. You had a productive meeting. Some of us chose to participate; some of us decided that we spend enough time on Wikipedia without spending time on IRC as well.
• WP:USRD is not trash, although it will benefit greatly from the reorganization. The reason we have so few FAs is simply because of the sheer volume of the articles involved. There simply aren't that many third-party sources we can rely on – especially for minor state routes – the way a hurricane WikiProject does, even for the weakest of hurricanes. Other than our tendency to randomly dive at each other's throats, we do a more than capable job at managing our work.

-- NORTH ^talk 23:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

About your IRC point, we all understand and even have the same opinion with your comment. However, there are some things in life you do not want to do, such as participate on IRC, but you have to do it when you want to get more out of what you were doing. People such as Rschen, TMF, Scott, Polaron, and myself had reasons to go on IRC and discuss what we did. Even MPD tried numerous times to connect to IRC, but failed because of his network. I believe that just trying to go the extra step (going on IRC in this case) is rewarding, and that you and others complaining about IRC aren't understanding the true state of USRD being inactive and destroyed. (No offense, NORTH, but that last sentence was directed at you for mostly doing work on NJSCR and other good projects) Also, please stay civil and cool; it's apparent that you aren't even thinking about those two while you were making the above statements.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 00:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:USRD is not trash, but it is not being maintained, that is my allegation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Please shut up about IRC already. You had a productive meeting. Some of us chose to participate; some of us decided that we spend enough time on Wikipedia without spending time on IRC as well." As editors, we have to respect your decision; however, then do not complain when we have important discussions on IRC that affect the project. And you say this with never having been on IRC... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that I failed to stay cool, but only on my statement about IRC, because I'm tired of discussing it. To be explicitly clear, I'm glad you had a productive meeting there. I'm just reiterating that I won't be participating because I don't have time to, and don't call the 8% dreadful. It's about what I expected, especially since most of the 100 figure you cite are inactive editors. I never complained about this IRC discussion; my negative comments towards IRC were all based on attempting to change guidelines without achieving true consensus. This IRC discusssion did exactly what it was supposed to do: implement necessary reorganization to the project (but no actual changes when you think about it), and provoke healthy discussion here.

Rschen, your allegation was, and I quote, "The whole project is simply in a state of trash right now. Yes, a state of trash." And Vishwin is right, my view is somewhat jaded, since I work mainly in "good" projects. The reason I work mainly in NJ (other than being raised there) is that NJDOT has blessed us with the SLDs. Finding things like mileage – even occasionally basic things like noncontradictory information on termini – can be horrendous for other states. Thus I contribute where I can, with the information available to me. Perhaps once I'm done putting infoboxes on NJ, OR, and WA, I can research a little more deeply into what's available for other states. -- NORTH ^talk 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

March 17 request to edit West Virginia's shield

I realize that your wikiproject has remained as authentic as possible in its use of state road shields; however, West Virginia's is so plain and uninteresting that it can often be confused with the shields of other states. Therefore, I propose substituting with File:WVtRouteTemplate2.jpg. As a West Virginian, I do prefer the design of the latter. Thanks for your consideration. Mphamilton 16:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, no... This is an encyclopedia... -- NORTH ^talk 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree --Mhking 03:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad shield though. If numbers look good in it, suggest it to (the DOT of) West Virginia. If they change theirs, we will too. --MPD ^{T / C} 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, you should be able to use it on userpages and for the wikiproject symbol. —Rob (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, send it to WVDOH. Oklahoma changed their shield for the Centennial, perhaps you can find another reason that WVDOH might want to spend the money on new shields. Or, just send it to The Great International Highway Makeover so other roadgeeks can see it. —Scott5114↗ 07:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone hasn't noticed, the "replacement" image above is neither centered nor a preferred image type. The edges of the shield are cut off and it is a JPEG, where the preferred non-vector format for this case would be PNG. Regardless, this shield is unencyclopedic and should not be used in article space. If you want to use it for your userpage, go ahead, but it does not belong in the WV stub template. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Highways

Can anyone tell me the point of this page other than it listing out all the Wikiprojects? It hasn't been update by a bot since November and to be honest I have never found it useful. Where does the bot pull its information? I know we have a lot more than 10 articles needing cleanup (technically only 1 of those listed under cleanup even falls under this project), etc... If someone finds it useful or thinks it can be fixed to make it useful, by all means lets keep it, but personally I think it just clutters up the project pages. --Holderca1 16:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

110% agreed. -- NORTH ^talk 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've cleaned up project pages, I've been removing it, so no argument here. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How to create Nebraska shields

I looked at Wikimedia Commons and at least 2 Nebraska Highway Shields are missing, for NE 19 and NE 85. Any way to get them posted? DandyDan2007 00:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done - N-19.svg and N-38.svg. • master_son^{Lets talk} 01:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)