Jump to content

User talk:Imzadi1979/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Can you delete my bad article

Can you delete my bad article that I made Dudeperson176123 (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dudeperson176123: you'll have to be more specific than that, as most of your creations are "bad articles". However, if you just add {{db-g7}} to the top of the article, if no one else has done much editing to it, an administrator will delete the article. (I am not an admin, so I cannot delete articles.) Imzadi 1979 → 16:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you know any admins? Maybe they could help! Dudeperson176123 (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I know several admins. You trouble, Dudeperson176123 is that you seem to want to create new articles on topics that don't need articles at all. I think you need to learn how to crawl before you can walk and before you can run. By that, I mean you need to learn how to do the small stuff around here first before you move on to the bigger stuff. All of the photos you've uploaded have problems. You can't just take a digital photo of your computer screen an upload it to Wikipedia as an acceptable image. We use the concept of notability to decide if a subject gets and article, and you've been ignoring that. You haven't really caught on to how road articles are structured, even though we've pointed you to WP:USRD/NEW for an excellent primer on how articles are structured. Seriously, I don't think that editing Wikipedia is something you should be doing at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 16:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that is a bad idea, you learn from your mistakes! Dudeperson176123 (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
You have not been learning from your mistakes, Dudeperson176123. I've been spending a couple of hours each day mopping up after your editing to tag things for deletion and remove additions to articles. I have my own projects on Michigan's highways that need attention, yet I don't have the time to get to them. The current issue of the USRD newsletter needs to be put together as well, something I should have been doing 2 days ago, yet I have not had the time because I need to babysit your editing. In short, you're a net negative on the productivity of the project, and you haven't shown any signs of improvement. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but it's the truth. (Also, when you reply to someone, you need to start your reply on a new line and indent it with a colon [:] character. My last comments here were indented with 3 colons, so your reply should have been indented with 4. This reply I'm making right now then gets 5 to indent it another level yet.)
Now, if you want to do something productive, you should notice that I converted Numbered routes in Rhode Island into a table using the templates from our project standards on lists. Someone needs to fill in the missing information, and it's not hard to do. I'll type out instructions on Talk: Numbered routes in Rhode Island in just a moment, and if you can follow those, then you can fill in the rest of the table. Imzadi 1979 → 16:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw the new list. Dudeperson176123 (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Dudeperson176123 (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I've blocked per WP:CIR. This is a time sink. --Kinu t/c 03:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Imzadi. I'm just posting to let you know that Pure Michigan Byway – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for September 18. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Giants2008: I was always under the impression that maps made poor images in main page blurbs because of the size constraints that render them as indistinct blobs of lines and shapes. The PMB map at TFL size only confirms that impression. Compared to the larger size used in the list's infobox, it is just too small to clearly convey much usable information. It barely shows the colored lines with the locations of the longer byways. The caption completely lacks the color key for the historic (green) recreational (brown) or scenic (blue) lines for each type. I know where to look and what the lines mean, but I think most (all) other readers will be lost attempting to comprehend what the map is trying to show.
For this topic, the best single representative image would then be the signs that MDOT erects along the lengths of the byways. That option poses a bit of a temporary conundrum though. MDOT has yet to unveil the new Pure Michigan Byway signs, and they have until the end of this year to do so. Until then, the Michigan Heritage Route signs are still in use, but they will be phased out soon, eliminating the temporary mismatch between the new name and the old signs.
I'm indifferent to the exact timing of when this runs as a TFL, but if you're willing to wait, we could postpone until after the new signs are unveiled. In the meantime, List of Interstate Highways in Michigan could be an alternative that could run with the I-75 marker (longest Interstate Highway/any kind of highway in the state, etc) or any of the various good highway photos like File:I-75 Chrysler Freeway looking south.jpg that depict one of the freeways in the state. Imzadi 1979 → 02:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
If you think a sign will make for the best image in this case, I'd be happy to change the article to one that currently has an appropriate sign. The Interstate list looks to be in good shape, so I'll change the blurb when I get a chance. Thanks for the input. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, the change has officially been made. I used the I-75 shield that was in the infobox; please let me know if you think that is good enough. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. A template uses few words to create more words in the article. My apologies. 86.159.14.119 (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Interstate 70 Business

Thanks for your help on Interstate 70 Business (Columbia, Missouri). I really don't know what I'm doing with road articles, but I was thinking that if it were filled out in the next couple days it could make a good DYK. The unique situation of having a public question with one voter, a random 23-year-old college student, earned it national coverage (albeit very briefly) on the Rachel Maddow show the other day, and there are at least two more sources about this that I can add. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: I wrote a route description (RD) and added the start of the "road junction list" (RJL) table. I've also pinged my colleague Fredddie to see if he can help out with sourcing the length and mileposts from MoDOT sources since he's been good at doing that for other articles. That would just leave the History section to fill in at some point. The CID-related stuff is really outside of the scope of what USRD does with highway articles, but since there is the RD and RJL, it's start-class for our project. I was looking over WP:USRD/AASHTO to see if the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials had approve the designation for BL I-70 in Columbia, but it looks like that approval predates our archive of their official committee minutes/reports. We may be able to source some old maps that show the last map before it was designated and the first map after to pin down a range of when it was created. That would at least give us some content for the History section. In short, I'm working on the roads angle if you can work on the CID angle.
In any case, I agree that the usage of the business loop for a special district and the anomaly of the tax assessment question makes this topic notable for an article, and it would be a neat DYK hook for sure. Imzadi 1979 → 18:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Delivery page substing

It's not very likely to work well to try to have AnomieBOT subst that template, since it appears the template is mass-added to user talk pages using MassMessage. Can MassMessage not subst the template when it's delivering them? Anomie⚔ 11:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anomie: MassMessage can, when the messenger doesn't forget the subst: when typing out the wikicode for the message. Rather than re-send it, I thought that the bot could fix that by subst-ing it now before the next issue goes out in a couple weeks. Imzadi 1979 → 12:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Anomie⚔ 13:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Imzadi 1979 → 13:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for message complimenting on June McCarroll article

I've made minor edits to other articles but this was my first major edit. Still learning the ropes on Wikipedia writing/editing. :-P Finding her family was very colorful, including her father's bigamy. As he was one-time Mayor of Emporia, KS, I wonder if he should have an article page, too? Though it would have to include detailing his family bigamy and the 1895 newspaper quote of him wanting to blow up Los Angeles! Otrbug (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

June McCarroll citiations

Question--I noticed my citations for McCarroll's parents' burials listed on Findagrave now show that they're not reliable sources. How can this be, the fact the cemetery stone images are shown there?Otrbug (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Otrbug: the general advice from Wikipedia:Find a Grave famous people#When creating articles is that the site is not a reliable source, which is why I tagged them as such. Headstones can be wrong, while a death certificate rarely is. Of course a biography or article about the subject of the headstone would be best.
I did have a concern about the reliance on primary sources, like the census and other databases of government documents. I haven't read through everything fully, so I'm not saying that there is an issue with anything. We just have to be careful when using primary sources to only repeat what they say, and offer no commentary or interpretation of them. We have to leave that to secondary sources. Imzadi 1979 → 22:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I rly want a page like dis

i rly want a page like your User page. I edit all state highways, I edit Interstates, I even have down where I-69 will run. I really love interstates, Infact, I'm making one right now in the game, Minecraft. If you can, please help me :) thx -EBGamingWiki

(talk page stalker) That's really not a good idea. Your user page should reflect you and your work not someone else's. –Fredddie™ 12:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

AMPV

Hi Imzadi1979,

I note you removed the (AMPV) from the title of the recently created Armoured Multi-Purpose Vehcile page. I'm still very much a learner with Wiki, and I wonder if that will impact when people search Wiki, and maybe even the internet in general?

Not many people would search for this vehicle using Armoured Multi-Purpose Vehicle complete, as in Europe that vehicle is really only ever called AMPV; few even know what the acronym stands for! Will removing the (AMPV) from the title impact on searchability?

And as you seem an expert, I also wonder how not having (AMPV) in the title will impact on searches in general when the titles Armoured Multi-Purpose Vehcile and Armored Multi-Purpose Vehcile exist on Wiki? The latter is a US Army tracked vehicle program (to replace M113), the former a German (RMMV/KMW) light wheeled protected vehicle.

Your thoughts and knowledge appreciated.

UndateableOne (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@UndateableOne: normally we only append items in parentheses at the end of an article title when we need to disambiguate (differentiate) between items with the same title. In those cases, we wouldn't append the abbreviation, but rather a description. For example, if we had two different articles on two different men named "John Smith", but the first was a politician and the second an actor, we'd have articles named "John Smith (politician)" and "John Smith (actor)". If we needed further differentiation, you might see "John Smith (American politician)" and the like.
Regarding your questions about removing the abbreviation, it should not impact search engines. They should be indexing the content of the article of the article, not just its title. As to your other question, we can insert a "hatnote" to the top of each article pointing readers to the other one at the other title. That way if they ended up at Armoured Multi-Purpose Vehicle when they really wanted Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, they could click the appropriate link to switch. I've added those notes already.
The abbreviation could be used as the article title, but since it's not unique, we'd need to append some descriptor to it anyway or expand the abbreviation because each title needs to be unique. Imzadi 1979 → 12:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for all of that. Much appreciated.UndateableOne (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

AASHTO?

Hey, Imzadi, thanks for the edit summary on your revert of my edit [1]. I'm confused; I didn't find a page at WP:AASHTO. Could you give me a link to the actual policy page? Thanks! Unschool 17:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

AASHTO is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. They are the group who developed and implements the Interstate Highway System numbering along with the Federal Highway Administration. Imzadi 1979 → 19:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As you requested

The Center Line

Volume 8, Issue 3 • Summer 2015 • About the Newsletter

—–Fredddie™ 04:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What about this? –Fredddie™ 01:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

United States Bicycle Route System

Thanks for your edits to the United States Bicycle Route System article – I'm glad this article is finally getting the attention it deserves! In a recent edit, you added |author= parameters to a number of citations in which an individual author was not named. This is redundant with the |publisher= parameter; is it really necessary to say that a press release is both |author=Adventure Cycling Association and |publisher=Adventure Cycling Association? – Minh Nguyễn 💬 21:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mxn: my philosophy on that situation has changed this year. In the past, I'd have used |author=Staff, or some variation, to indicate staff-written sources that are otherwise anonymously authored. Earlier this year, we changed {{cite map}} to properly handle authors and publishers, and now you'll find lots of citations like:
Michigan Department of Transportation (2015). Pure Michigan: State Transportation Map (Map). c. 1:975,000. Lansing: Michigan Department of Transportation. § B5. OCLC 42778335, 900162490.
It may seem redundant, but I think it's a good practice to always try to specify at least four details for any citation: the author, the date of publication, the title(s) involved and the publisher, even if that results in some redundancies. Of course, the author could be a specific office or subdivision of an organization, and that would minimize the appearance of redundancy. Imzadi 1979 → 21:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I can see that being useful for something like a map (where there's even a |cartography= parameter) or news article (where it's common for bylines to say "Staff reporter" by default), to indicate that the author isn't unknown. But a press release is by definition authored by an organization, and I've wondered whether it even makes sense to use |author= on press releases that specifically name a press contact. {{Cite press release}} already has |via= for the wire agency you get the press release from. The examples for that template make clear that |author= is only intended to be used when a byline is given. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 21:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that a press release is by default authored by an organization; most of them list the author/press contact who created the specific release or a specific office of the organization issuing them, and that person or office would be listed as the author(s).
As for the |cartography= on a map, that parameter should actually have very limited use going forward as whatever is listed there should be the author of the map; there are limited cases like the map of Mackinac Island on the M-185 (Michigan highway) article where it's necessary to call out the cartographer separate from the general authors. Imzadi 1979 → 21:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

What is your gender/sex/whatever?

@Imzadi1979: Title says it all. PhilrocMy contribs 12:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Philroc: that's getting a bit personal. I'm sure you mean well and are just curious, but I don't see how the answer to that has any bearing on anything here. Imzadi 1979 → 20:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979: OK, will send email to you. PhilrocMy contribs 23:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) What Imzadi meant to say, Philroc, is that it's none of your business. –Fredddie™ 23:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yooper dialect

Hello, Do you have access to, or know where I can find, the articles cited on the Yooper dialect page? I'd like to look them over, since I can find very little information defining Yooper as its own "dialect" (as opposed to a sub-dialect, accent, etc.). It seems clear to me so far that it is merely a sub-type of the North Central dialect. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice userpage

Wow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakelectrical (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Deletion to Quality Award

The Deletion to Quality Award
For your contributions to bring Brockway Mountain Drive (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brockway Mountain Drive) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Deletion to Quality Award

The Deletion to Quality Award
For your contributions to bring H-58 (Michigan county highway) (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H-58 (Michigan county highway)) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Deletion to Quality Award

The Deletion to Quality Award
For your contributions to bring H-63 (Michigan county highway) (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H-63 (Michigan county highway)) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Please can you add yourself to our Hall of Fame, at Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award/Hall of Fame ? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Creation Deletions

Sorry if I'm sounding blunt here, but it seems as though you want to delete all of my creations from Wikipedia... You've shown up 4 times on my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubsguy1969 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not the case. However, you have to follow our policies and the appropriate copyright laws when uploading photos, Cubsguy1969, or your uploads will have to be deleted. As for articles, not every road is considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Some can be included as part of a larger list, but they wouldn't warrant a full stand-alone article. Some don't even warrant inclusion in a list. Imzadi 1979 → 19:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yooper dialect

I'm interested in renaming the "Yooper dialect" page to something ending in "English," as in "Yooper English" or "Upper Michigan English." Thoughts? This seems to follow WP: NCL, which recommends using the "PLACENAME English" format in cases whether there is not yet consensus on the name of the dialect/variety in the academic literature (in fact, see the Remlinger [2015] quotation below). Here's what I've found to be the primary name used in each of these articles I found about the variety:

  • "Copper Country English" (though, also, "While there is no specific name for the particular local variety, often both it and its speakers are identified as Yooper" [119])
    • Used here: Remlinger, Kathryn. "Everyone Up Here: Enregisterment And Identity In Michigan's Keweenaw Peninsula." American Speech 84.2 (2009): 118-137. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.
  • "(Michigan) Upper Peninsula (UP) English"
    • Used here: Rankinen, Wil. "The Michigan Upper Peninsula English Vowel System In Finnish American Communities In Marquette County." American Speech 89.3 (2014): 312-347. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.
  • "Upper Peninsula dialect" or "Keweenaw dialect" (implied)
    • Used here: Dorson, M. Richard. "Dialect Stories of the Upper Peninsula: A New Form of American Folklore." The Journal of American Folklore Vol. 61, No. 240 (Apr. - Jun., 1948), pp. 113-150.
  • Still looking for the "Saying Ya to the Yoopers" article....

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfdog (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Expanding bare OCLC numbers into full citations

Thank you very much !!!

expanding bare OCLC numbers into full citations -- did you do that last part manually by yourself, or with a tool of some sort ?

Thanks again,

— Cirt (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: I did so manually by copying and pasting the appropriate information from other citations once I figured out to what resources those bare OCLC numbers corresponded. Imzadi 1979 → 19:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the result was wrong citations, removal of precise dates of publication needed to back up info in the text, and duplicate entries of the exact same OCLC number instead of the prior correct version with different OCLC numbers to show different editions. Can you please compare with the prior version I had, and fix it back? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
It seemed very strange to me that you were citing the same thing over and over again, only differing by OCLC number. I'll let you double check things and amend them accordingly. Additionally, as discussed in a presentation at WikiConference USA earlier this month, it is very common for the exact same resource to have multiple OCLC numbers, or for multiple resources to share the same OCLC number because those numbers are assigned by member libraries, not the publishers. For example, the Library of Michigan has assigned a single OCLC to all of the official state highway maps published by the Michigan State Highway Department/Michigan Department of Transportation. Other libraries have assigned separate numbers to some editions of the maps that they own. In theory, some maps have either the single shared OCLC from the LoM, the shared OCLC and a unique number, or even the shared number and multiple individual numbers. This contrasts to ISBNs which are assigned by the publishers to each edition/format (1st ed., 2nd ed., etc plus hardback/paperback/eBook/Kindle/etc.).
In short, I'll leave it to you to sort out anything based on what you're trying to accomplish, Cirt. It seems your citation technique with those is not something I've seen done very commonly, but bare OCLCs like that are not very helpful to readers. Imzadi 1979 → 20:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree your expanding the citations was more helpful. But can you not see that what resulted was duplicate citations of the same thing, and you actually changed the OCLC numbers, to different ones? Can you see that? — Cirt (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I did not intentionally change any OCLC numbers, Cirt. I merely copied the duplicative portions of the {{cite book}} in place of the opening braces on the {{oclc}}, and changed the "|" to an "=" so that the existing OCLC information would remain unchanged. I did have to update the ISBNs though because those vary from print to electronic formats as well as varying between print formats. If you're so unhappy, just revert me and be done with it. If this is the price I have to pay for trying to help, I'll no longer wikignome anything I find interesting if your account is attached to it. Imzadi 1979 → 20:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Imzadi1979, please, I ask of you, stop being like that, I am happy you stopped by and tried to help out, okay? — Cirt (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Imzadi1979, I think I've fixed everything. Part of the problem was my own fault, there were indeed some duplicate cites in there. I think it's all fixed now. My apologies if my tone came off as crabby today, I'm suffering from a bit of a stomach bug. I still do very much indeed your contributions and copy-edits, alright? — Cirt (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Imzadi1979, apologies if I came off as a bit crabby today -- I've been suffering from a stomach bug with 10/10 pain today and I guess it's been affecting me more than I realized. Once again, I'm sorry about that and I truly do value you as a writer, contributor, copy-editor, and for your wikignoming skills on Wikipedia. — Cirt (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: apology accepted. Imzadi 1979 → 01:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much! :) — Cirt (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My apology

Sorry for editing SR 2 like I did recently. I was following an apparent habit of User:Mr. Matté that was applied in various Ohio state route articles. Here is one of them: Ohio State Route 565 (Lines 42 and 45, current edit)

Cards84664 (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Some have this preference of not using blank parameters in templates, but I've found that leaving the blank |notes= in place leaves a spot for less-knowledgeable editors to add notes in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok, Thanks. Cards84664 (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Request

Sir this Road subject is the still a unstudied subject by society itself.That's why I am not providing you sufficient References,but it is a notable content to the community guidelines.I request you,please publish this article,please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoj Hagalavadi. (talk • contribs) 10:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not how things work here, ‎ Manoj Hagalavadi. We must have the appropriate sources to demonstrate that notability, or we can't accept the draft. Wikipedia is not a publisher of unique content. Imzadi 1979 → 10:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your review,I will try to edit the Draft and collect the information from the sites for its Notability.

If you can, suggest me to alter this article please,if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoj Hagalavadi. (talk • contribs) 10:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It is also obvious to me that English is not your primary language. Manoj Hagalavadi., you might have an easier time editing another edition of Wikipedia in your primary language, or reaching out to others from your area who are more fluent in English to help translate and copy edit your work. Imzadi 1979 → 11:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Changing road refs via AWB

Could you ping me around Wednesday so we can go over how to change the refs via AWB. Monthly dump just came out and Monday/Tuesday are usually the busiest days on Wikipedia. More people editing, more things for me to fix. Bgwhite (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A Question

I would like to tell the Road TCB is also called as Tumkur-Bukkapatna Road.I have mentioned some sources in draft's buttom or references .In those sites you can find information on the searching terms as Tumkur-Bukkapatna Road.The draft 's title will not provide us direct sources on the web or in print media,instead it is available on Tumkur-Bukkapatna Road on some sites. What shall we do? Can we change the drafts title as Tumkur-Bukkapatna Road ? can use the name TCB in bracket?

Tell me about it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoj Hagalavadi. (talk • contribs) 06:11, 12 November 2015‎ (UTC)

@Manoj Hagalavadi.: your English skills are not very good, so I'm not exactly sure what you're asking me.
  1. The draft does not contain sufficient references to demonstrate notability. We need to follow the General notability guideline (GNG), which says we a collection of references that demonstrate that there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic". There's a good explanation of this at WP:Golden rule.
  2. You also need to link to specific places and not force readers or reviewers to search in linked websites. We shouldn't have to do the work to find sources when you should link directly to those sources for us.
  3. The current title of the draft doesn't matter so much. The alternate names for the road are listed in the lead paragraph of the draft, so readers know that there are other names.
  4. The code for the infobox has to be done a certain way, and if you don't do it right, you break things. You can list alternate names in it, but you have to use the |alternate_name= parameter or it won't work.
The first two points above are the most important. If you don't follow that advice, your draft will never be approved. Imzadi 1979 → 22:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Highway 427

Hey there. Noticed your comment, but there is no standalone article for the BRT. I created a rapid transit section in the highway article since the details are skimpy, and it would otherwise be a stub. So would you see a stub as more appropriate than what I was going for? --Natural RX 22:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Natural RX: as it is a future development, more details will be forthcoming, so yes, I do see a separate article as more appropriate. As for assessments, that's what future-class is for. Imzadi 1979 → 22:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsigned Georgia 400-series state routes for interstates

Georgia uses unsigned state routes for interstate highways: Interstate 85 in Georgia, for example, is unsigned SR 403. Has there been discussion in the past on using - or not using - shields for these unsigned routes in infoboxes? I see you've reverted some of the edits by EBGamingWiki today to add shields but not all of them. I agree with you on no shields, but I wonder if you remember where we've had discussion on this already. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred: there hasn't been a specific discussion, however we've organically started following a general principle that marker graphics should have a "caption" of some kind. The larger marker at the top of the infobox is captioned by the name/title that appears below it. In cases like Ohio Turnpike, since the turnpike has its own marker, then that appears at the top, but for St. Joseph Valley Parkway, which lacks a SJVP-specific marker, we omit one and run the constituent highways in a different section of the box. By running two markers like that without directly mentioning the second in the name space, we lose that captioning effect.
As for EBGamingWiki's edits, I reverted the few that I had on my watchlist through my alternate account, and I didn't have the time earlier to investigate the rest of his contributions today before traveling home. I do intend to revert the rest as what he did is not a best practice. Also, the coding he added set the markers at 100px, not 70px, and his coding lacks the automatically generated alt text that the templates create. For those three reasons (loss of the captioning effect, inconsistency in sizes with other articles and loss of alt text), his edits are definitely not how we should be doing things. Imzadi 1979 → 21:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for M-231 (Michigan highway)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please move article back

I explained in the first edit that created the page that the lower caps was intended to distinguish the actual "downtown (generic descriptor) Miami" from the Downtown Miami (area official name) which is an agglomeration of about five neighborhoods now generally referred to as "Downtown Miami." It is a unique case, you can see the DDA maps etc. to see what I mean. When you're in Brickell and you say you're going "downtown", everyone knows that mean the CBD, the "old downtown". In this case, the reason I added "downtown" at all to the disambiguation parenthesis was because this is not to denote the city for disambiguation purposes, it is to give the alternate name of the area. I know this is all confusing and it's Miami so the majority of quality English editors don't care about it, but that's how it is. None of this is unsourced or original research. Thank you. B137 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@B137: a few points, all of which I will leave for you to deal with.
  1. If you're going to use that two-word descriptor as a disambiguation term, it should match the capitalization of the article. Anything else is just confusing and wrong.
  2. If it is instead supposed to be an alternate name, it should not be in parentheses as a disambiguation term. Instead, that alternate name should be a redirect to whatever the article is titled. If removing that leaves an ambiguous title, you'll need to find a better/different disambiguation term.
  3. Whatever the article is ultimately titled, you need not ask me to undo my actions as it requires/required no special permissions to do in the first place, nor to revert.
However, the title you picked was not acceptable in terms of capitalization based on our policies and principles for article titles. Imzadi 1979 → 22:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Not true @#3, and this may be because I lost a lot of permissions during a name change, but I can not move over redirects, and because it is not a normal edit when I click undo it says "this has already been undone". B137 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@B137: any regular editor can move over a redirect if that redirect only has had a single edit; there is no special permission related to that. Once there's a second edit made, it needs to be deleted by an admin first. However, your original name doesn't fit with our policies and principles related to article titles. Maybe the new one doesn't fit perfectly either, so then the solution is to find something that fits better with everything. Maybe that's just Central Business District (Miami), or maybe it's something else. Imzadi 1979 → 23:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
It's probably the latter. I was just trying to make the page match the unique scenario in Miami. in fact, the CBD is not even the financial district in this case, Brickell is the Brickell Financial District. It's odd all around, just like Miami's 35 sq mi pop 400,000 deceptively small size for the size of it's brand name. B137 (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest a move to Central Business District (Miami) B137 (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Map of Interstate 69 in Texas

The portion of Interstate 69 in downtown Houston from Interstate 610 (West Loop Freeway) to Interstate 610 (North Loop Freeway) should be added to Current Interstate 69. Also the portion of Interstate 69W in Laredo from the Mexican border to Interstate 35 should be added to Current Interstate 69. NJRobbie (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@NJRobbie: I can't help you with that. I didn't make the map in question, so you'll need to ask the editor who did, or file a request for a correction over at WP:USRD/MTF/R. Imzadi 1979 → 15:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with regard to Article Title change!

Hi, Imzadi1979,

Thank you so much for helping a newbie in England with help regarding changing the Article Title with regard to the spelling of a medieval word!

Armond Dean (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Photo Use in Book

Hello, my name is Brett Ortler, and I work for Adventure Publications. We're producing a book about Tall Ships on the Great Lakes (in time for the upcoming Tall Ships festivals in 2016), and I came across your Tall Ships photo of the Coaster II on Wikipedia.

I noticed that the image we're interested in is licensed according to a Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution Sharealike license. I'm writing because we'd like to use this image in our book and we're planning on cropping the images/dropping it into a photo frame. As we understand it, this might come into conflict with the Sharealike provision of the license, so we wanted to contact you ask for your formal permission to use your images in our book. If we do so, well of course credit the images pursuant to the license.

If this is acceptable, please let us know how you'd like your images to be credited. We'd also like to send you a free book. (On a personal note, I'm a pretty huge fan of Creative Commons licenses myself, and I license my Flickr images as CC images, too.)

If you agree, can you let me know what your address is, and how you'd like your credit to read?

You can reach me at [email protected]

Thanks for the fine work, and take care,

Brett Ortler

P.S. Apologies for the repost; I had posted this on a different Wikipage, but I'm not sure it was in the correct place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.144.1 (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Roadgeek

Hello Imzadi1979. Thank you for your recent changes to the Roadgeek article. There are numerous (more than one dozen) external links presented within this article such that it is incongruent with our Manual of Style. This particular link to SKYSCRAPERCITY.COM is being removed on the basis that it is by definition an internet forum and has been spammed to approximately two thousand articles. Wikipedia is not a link repository, your assistance is requested in pruning the remainder of the external links to those which are most relevant. Please refer to Wikipedia:External links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided for examples of links which should generally be avoided. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It was listed exactly because it hosts a discussion forum directly connected to the topic of the article. There are other links there of a similar nature that were also listed for exactly that same reason, yet you've singled out the one and left the rest. I find that all are appropriate to the discussion of the topic of the roadgeek hobby, and they should remain as is. Imzadi 1979 → 22:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Imzadi1979 for your response. As you have an interest in this article, would you please discuss your rationale for repeatedly restoring the external link to SKYSCRAPERCITY.COM at Talk:Roadgeek? [2] [3] [4] As explained, this particular link has been egregiously spammed and the entire link section contains many more links to avoid. Your assistance with bringing this article in line with our editorial policies is sincerely appreciated. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Imzadi, a summary of yet another Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I should be finished with the summary tonight. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Bird Road changes

Hey mate, I'm curious as to your rationale for the changes you made to Bird Road - it appears (and I apologise in advance if I'm wrong) you wish to spin off the State Road section into its own article. If that is the case, while I agree with you that the article suggests that it should be about the street only, I'm quite doubtful that the Bird Road article can stand on its own two feet without the FL SR 976 incorporated into it if it were to be a separate article; the same would be said for vice-versa. I suggested renaming the article to the state road number with seven other articles and then, in light of a counter-request, coming up with a compromise back in the first half of 2013, to which nothing amounted and the consensus was to leave everything as it was and still appears to be. While I find it annoying that at least eight articles in South Florida don't conform to WP:USSH AT standards, I've let it lie. If you wish to push for a change, though, I'm happy to support you, but that way madness lies. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's more like revising the article to follow the title. Since it's not named for the highway designation, the infobox and text should put the street name first. Imzadi 1979 → 14:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
As a follow up, DyluckTRocket, I agree that if Bird Road weren't SR 976, it wouldn't merit an article, and so it should be renamed on that basis. However, it wasn't renamed, and I suspect that any attempts to rename it would be met with some level of resistance again. Given that, I figure that the least we can do is stop pretending that the article is titled to be about a state highway, and instead write it as a street-level article that just happens to involve a segment under state maintenance.
The other alternative, as you sort of suggest, would be to spin the SR 976 content out in detail elsewhere and watch the remainder collapse as unnotable. Perhaps these short, barely notable SRs should be merged into a listicle like the various WP:USRD/RCS-based pages. We'd have to do a little checking, but I suspect that most of these articles involve SRs in the 900s, meaning such a List of State Roads in Florida (900–999) could be the start of some rationality. Imzadi 1979 → 23:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Putting the articles for the particular short State Roads into a RCS page sounds like a BRILLIANT idea. Not only could the streets in question still stand on their own with the State Road information in them, the listicle could then talk about the SR components exclusively but still have enough notability to stand on its own, and the WP:MIAMI people would be, to some extent, appeased with having their street articles not be superseded by FL SR article titles, except in a few notable exceptions (e.g. freeways and Krome Avenue (SR 997)-like routes). I'd have to look into which SR's would qualify for this, as there would have to be some renaming of articles that are currently SR ### where that is only a short component of it (Florida State Road 990 comes to mind). There's a few issues I see with it, though:
  • Making sure that the "locals" don't rename every single numbered road title into its named equivalent - I don't want to see SR 997 become "Krome Avenue", for example, when the two are completely homogeneous.
  • Inclusion into the listicle would also depend on how much of the State Road covers the entire street. Miami-Dade County's streets are entirely based off a grid, so something like Galloway Road appears seven times along more or less the same line of longitude. Red Road (Miami) could provide a partial answer, though. Intrinsically tied into this is the history of designation and truncation, something that I've had a lot of trouble with finding, as it seems the the State Roads apply to what appear to be the more heavily trafficked portions of that particular road and may have applied to the entire length at one point or another in some cases.
  • The other main issue is also going to be the title of the listicle itself. Florida uses a geographical basis for its road numbering which means that both SR 94 and SR 994 would potentially qualify, so using your suggested title wouldn't work. It could be named List of minor Florida State Roads in Miami-Dade County or List of minor Florida State Roads in South Florida, the latter if, for example, Florida State Road 834 in Broward County was deemed minor enough. I'd say it's more likely to be just in Miami-Dade, though.
  • Which brings up another question - what is minor enough to be deemed "minor", and how could that be justified in the listicle's lead? If the same named street as a State Road continues beyond the termini of a more major highway, does that automatically include it in the list?
Before I'd continue with this, I'd run it by WP:USRD and WP:MIAMI with a potential list, possibly RfC it as well, should you think that I should run with this. Thank you very much for suggesting the RCS for these articles - this may end the problem I've had with them for some years now. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I would be for RCS merging all of the three digit state roads into groups of 100, like we're trying very slowly to do with Texas FM/RM roads. If you study the numbering plan, they were never supposed to be major or long roads, which I supposed we could work into the lead of each listicle. The few outliers that currently have long(er) articles can be summarized and linked per WP:USRD/RCS. –Fredddie™ 07:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd have to look into it to be absolutely sure, but I would say that the outliers in this case are these minor SR's, not the major routes. Many three-digit routes are now major suburban roads with clear start and end points that are homogeneous with their named counterparts, or go beyond them. A list of routes per hundred like the Texas FM/RM roads would be full of links to other articles without much substance of its own - a reader would probably have to scroll past a myriad of links before getting any information "unique" to the page. Additionally, Kendall Drive, SR 94, a two-digit route, is potentially one of these minor routes as well. I think it would be better to keep it to the county/area than condense everything into groups per hundred. Florida's system of three-digit routes is not like Virginia's secondary highways with a clear-cut divide between major and minor. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

SkyscraperCity

When you put SkyscraperCity in as an external link on Roadgeek here, what was the rationale behind the edit? Buffaboy talk 04:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Thanks for the cleanup on the reverse-contrast typefaces article! There is actually a Michigan connection at the beginning when I started the article, if you didn't spot it: I saw this picture while looking for something else and thought "wow, I didn't realise they'd got so far from London so fast" - so started to dig around and look for sources for an article... Blythwood (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Ferris State edits

1.) Honors Program is not a proper noun. If it was titled The Honors Program or Ferris State University Honors Program, that would be a proper noun, since it is referring to a specific program. 2.) Most of the university articles only list the main university campus in the infobox since the other campuses are listed in the body. There is no need to list both in the Infobox. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 02:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, the capitalization should stay as I have updated it, Corkythehornetfan, because that is the proper name of the program. No definite article is necessary to make it a proper name, and in fact, the definite article is not part of the name. The university name is not required to make it a proper name either, although in the most formal sense the institution name may be used as part of the name. Based on context, it could be dropped and still retain its status as the proper name. For example, it might be "the Ferris State University College of Arts and Sciences", but if the context is clear, "the College of Arts and Sciences" is also correct. However, other shortenings, like "the college", would be in lower case. (See Chicago Manual of Style 16th ed., §8.67 for examples.) In fact, according to CMOS, and our MOS, we wouldn't capitalize a definite article as part of a name in this case. Imzadi 1979 → 03:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain how an entire road system can have a single junction list and a single route description?

Can you explain how an entire network of roads can have a single junction list and a single route description? There's no meaningful way to put either of those in the article. The article is not about a route. It's about a collection of roads. Under your logic, the article titled Interstate Highway System would qualify as stub-class, because it only has a "History" section, but not the other two. --Jayron32 04:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how you could not craft a prose description of the route that the Historic Albemarle Tour takes along with the landscapes and sites along the way. That, as a most basic definition, is a "route description", one section of the big three. I also fail to see how you could not craft at least a paragraph on the history of the designation for the second of the big three. Do those two, and you're up to start-class on the USRD assessment scale. Get the third, and we're into determining whether each section is mostly complete to divide between C- or B-class.
As for that third section, that's some form of a "road junction list". MOS:RJL has two options for these, the table and the bulleted list. If we can craft a tabular list for M-114, a highway that had three legs at the time of its decommissioning, or the Capitol Loop which has a significant length disparity, relative to its overall length, based on the direction of travel because of the effect of one-way streets, then I can imagine with a little creativity that we could craft some form of table-based RJL. However, if it's too complex, we can use a bulleted list, or series of lists, to note the junctions and branches of the tour.
One final word of note, Jayron32. You seem to have conflated classification as "stub-class" with classification as a "stub". That is an easy mistake to make, as with most projects the two are identical. However, with USRD, they are not. The former is an assessment at the bottom of a seven-level quality scale, and the latter is based on the length of an article. There are articles assessed by USRD as Start-Class that properly have stub-sorting templates because they are short, and there are lengthier articles that are still Stub-Class because they are missing two of the big three. Imzadi 1979 → 04:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Texas Park Road 1 could also serve as another good example. Imzadi 1979 → 05:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification. I will look to these options for future improvement. --Jayron32 12:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Not nice

I saw your revert of my edit to Louisiana Highway 817. If that edit really didn't do anything, then there was no need for a revert, and reverting was not nice. See Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. If, as a matter of fact, my edit made layout a bit clearer, then you definitely shouldn't have reverted. Since in both cases you should not have reverted, I kindly ask you to undo your revert. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete my pic?

I noticed that you deleted my picture on the ON-427 article due to "sandwiched text" (?) Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transportfan70 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Transportfan70: there are 3 reasons, and the first is just that, sandwiched text. I should also clarify that I did not delete the photo; I just removed it from the article, and it is still on the servers and viewable. The photo you added appears immediately below another one on the righthand side of the article. There's another image that appears over on the lefthand side of the article in that same section. When you added your extra photo, it lined up with the other image on the left on narrower displays. That sandwiched text between the two images, shortening the line length. This is considered very undesirable.
The Ontario Highway 427 article is a Featured Article. It is considered part of "our finest work", and we should strive to keep it that way. Additionally, that photo has plenty of illustrations already, and the quality of the photo you added is quite poor in comparison.
Lastly, I have minor reservations about the provenance of the copyright/licensing status of the photo. These reservations aren't so great that I'd tag the photo for deletion, but enough that combined with the other concerns, I don't feel that the photo should appear in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 19:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see the display and quality reasons, but the picture is mine. I shot the vid myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transportfan70 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

2.27.213.200

Hi, I see you reverted all of 2.27.213.200's edits just an FYI this is an IP hopping idiot that I've been fighting with for months always on the 2.24.*.* or 2.27.*.* range. They have been doing this to road and metro systems around the world, and a new one yesterday was a note value (here). I've had a couple of dozen IPs blocked and even week long blocks on whole ranges (2.24.143.0/24), but they are a persistent troll. Just thought I'd give you the heads up. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy new year

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine✉

Not nice

I saw your revert of my edit to Louisiana Highway 817. If that edit really didn't do anything, then there was no need for a revert, and reverting was not nice. See Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. If, as a matter of fact, my edit made layout a bit clearer, then you definitely shouldn't have reverted. Since in both cases you should not have reverted, I kindly ask you to undo your revert. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The original edit didn't do anything visible in the first place, but it will prevent some automated editing from working properly in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 17:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
What automated editing precisely? Debresser (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I just want to remind you that I am still interested in the answer to my last question. Debresser (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

127

I would think that Dunckel is actually a more notable "indirect access" than say, 96/Cedar or 75/Crooks, which ARE noted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Really, they all should be pulled. I guess I consider it a minor detail not worth bothering to include. Imzadi 1979 → 04:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
This seems like a necessary clarification to me, but only if the exit blatantly, unarguably doesn't go directly to the signposted road. So maybe 96/Cedar and 75/Crooks can be pulled since they're effectively turnpike-style exits, but 496/127/Dunckel or 31/Pipestone (where there is absolutely no argument that all four ramps go to Sodus Parkway instead) should be kept. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Does AWB regex have a problem with this

I asked the experts at AWB. Debresser (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: your original edit was totally unneeded. There is an editing philosophy that if an edit doesn't actually change the display of the content of an article, which your original edit didn't, unless there is some overriding reason, the edit should not be performed. One such example occurred back in 2009 when we eliminated various aliases from {{infobox road}} and {{infobox road small}} to simplify the effort required to maintain and code those templates, and to harmonize the two templates with each other. In doing so, we used AWB to mass-update articles to pre-emptively change the deprecated parameter names to the ones that would supported going forward. By changing them ahead of time, even though the result didn't immediately change the display of content, we avoided breaking articles just a day or two later when the old aliases were removed. As for padding parameters as you did, the varying numbers of spaces in the underlying wikicode complicates any future automated maintenance. Imzadi 1979 → 08:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
That rule is not a reason to revert. By the way, there is a rule (enforced by ARBCOM) not to use semi-automated tools (like AWB) for such edits. In any case, my edit had two purposes: 1. improve visual layout 2. see if the error category would perhaps disappear after a WP:Null-edit. Whatever the reason was, reverting it for the reason you mention was not necessary (see reply at the AWB discussion) and not nice. That is all I wanted to say, and it is not a big deal, after all. Debresser (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

11 foot 8 Bridge

Imzadi1979 I learned a lot from you by looking at all the improvements you made to the 11 foot 8 Bridge. I have also been concerned about the name of this article. I eventually used the most common name, as required by Wikipedia policy. I was relieved to see your concern also.

Thanks for all your many contributions to Wikipedia, including teaching me a few new things. Comfr (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for List of U.S. Highways in Michigan

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I-375

I followed the recent news on I-375, and while one of the headlines in one of the papers described this as delayed indefinitely, reading through multiple sources including that story, perhpas it'd be better to describe it as a delay as no one is talking about throwing out the study results, rather they want to study it more. It certainly doesn't sound like they aren't going to do anything. I guess while it could be said that that specific study has been shelved - which I guess could be construed as "delayed indefinitely." - perhaps it be better to desribe the project as simply delayed. The headline - I think it was the Free Press - seems like it was kind of sensational/click-baity. What do you think? --Criticalthinker (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"Indefinitely" just means that there isn't a defined time period. It doesn't mean that the study has been killed, just that they haven't decided a time table for when it would be concluded. In that respect, the verbiage agrees with what you are saying. Imzadi 1979 → 00:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 70

Hi, you previously contributed to a deletion discussion for London bus route 403, another similar deletion discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 70 which you may wish to give your input on.

Note: I've placed (or am in the process of placing) this notification on the talk page of anyone who took part in the original deletion discussion, as the most recent similar discussion, regardless of deletion preference, which is allowable under WP:CANVASS. The only exception being if that person has already contributed, or has indicated on their profile that they are inactive.

Thanks for your time. Jeni (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Indiana State Road 37

missing map scales, sections, and in the case of the atlas, the name of the map being cited within

What are you talking about? This is the state highway map: the scale is irrelevant and there aren't multiple sections to the state highway map. Atlas maps often don't have names, and just as with any other book, supplying the page number for a specific edition is entirely sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend:
  • All maps have a scale, the inclusion of which is a best practice for a complete map citation. It is not irrelevant; the scale determines the level of detail visible. If it's not given for a specific map, a |scale=Scale not given notation is sufficient to note such a fact. (Library card catalog records may also give the scale information for a map lacking it, and if that information is used, it would be enclosed in brackets.) The only time a scale indication should be omitted is for variable-scale maps like Google Maps and the like.
  • Most modern printed state highway maps and road atlases have grid sections allowing us to point a reader to look at § A1 for the upper left corner of a map for the cited details. Of course maps can lack the grids, but if they don't, a map citation following best practices needs to include it.
  • Rand McNally names the maps within their atlases. Looking at recent editions, the map on pp. 50–51 is called "Michigan", and that title should be listed for a full citation. (It also fixes the issue where the "(Map)." notation appears after the name of the map and not the enclosing atlas, which itself isn't a map.)
Imzadi 1979 → 06:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

¡Una barnstar para ti!

El Barnstar original
Thank you for helping me. ::: YAMIL ::: (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverted the removal of the -Crystal- Tag, as this article is about a rumored Product. There is no data available from Apple Inc. that such a Product is being OR will be created.

There is no data available from Apple Inc. that such a Product is being OR will be created, searching on the internet only gives third-party rumours. Loomdime (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet the tag you applied is for unsourced speculation. Everything in that article is sourced, so the tag is not appropriate, Loomdime. Whether or not the company has confirmed it does not negate the fact that several different media outlets have reported on the subject, and our article accurately reflect on what they've published. Imzadi 1979 → 20:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no mention of this tag's usage criteria that states that "the tag is applied is for unsourced speculation"Loomdime (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Loomdime: the plain language of the output of the tag says, and I quote: "This article possibly contains unsourced predictions, speculative material, or accounts of events that might not occur. Please help improve it by removing unsourced speculative content." Considering that the article we're discussing has sourced content, we can't do as it asks us to do. In short, the tag just doesn't seem to apply. Imzadi 1979 → 23:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Added {{speculation}} Tag instead of {{Crystal}} Tag to Apple electric car project. Loomdime (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Please read the essay WP:VNT. –Fredddie™ 21:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Vehicle registration plates of Wisconsin

Hi Imzadi, it's Bluebird207 here.

You probably still remember the disagreement we had around 18 months ago regarding Vehicle registration plates of Michigan, which was completely and utterly my fault.

Looking back now, I wasn't in the best of moods even before the disagreement flared up: I had a terrible head cold that day, which largely confined me to my bed. And a terrible head cold does, unfortunately, have a negative effect on thinking, judgment and how one reacts.

But that's no excuse whatsoever. Head cold or no head cold, I should not have reacted the way I did to your edits to that article concerning bold text in the opening sentence, the use of {{nowrap}} in the tables, and the use of quotation marks around state names, slogans and years - because you were absolutely right.

I have since found that quotation marks do improve the appearance of the descriptions of plate designs and slogans - particularly in the case of Minnesota's long-running slogan, "10,000 Lakes", which since 1978 has been spelled with a small 'l'. And it's definitely a good idea to use {{nowrap}} when one wants to make a table column wider - and when one wants date ranges and lengthy serial formats with dashes to appear on a single line, too. (For lengthy serial formats that have a space as the separator, I use the non-breaking space.) Meanwhile, virtually all articles on vehicle registration plates of US states and Canadian provinces and territories now comply with MOS:BOLDTITLE.

But all along, and regardless of mood, it has not - and never has been - my intention to drive other users away from the articles I frequently edit, or from Wikipedia altogether. Perhaps I come across sometimes as being a little too enthusiastic - and I'm more than willing to admit that I can be a little selfish now and again - but intentionally putting off other users is not in my nature.

And I shall give you a good demonstration of this.

Two months after our disagreement, and with a much clearer head, I made a number of edits to Vehicle registration plates of Pennsylvania. As with every significant edit I make, I provided a summary with each one.

Unfortunately, a user called ALPCA 5632 - I hate having to name names here, but it's for purposes of clarity - took exception to these edits, and to one made by Meldar667 around a month before. And he/she reverted them all without providing a summary of any kind.

Thus began a dispute which ended with him/her being blocked indefinitely.

And I can say, without hyperbole, that I felt tremendously guilty. I admit that some of the things I did during this dispute were not wise - like warning this user on his/her talk page and putting this warning back after he/she had removed it, and bringing the matter to ANI when I should have raised it on the article's talk page first.

But all I wanted was for ALPCA 5632 to realise the errors of his/her ways, and hopefully learn from them. Instead, he/she was stripped of his/her editing rights altogether.

And such was my guilt that, just as you took the Michigan article off your watchlist during our disagreement, so I took the Pennsylvania article off mine - and I have been reluctant to edit it ever since.

Why am I only telling you all this now, you might be wondering?

Well, I'm fearful that a similar situation might occur with the Wisconsin article (hence the title of this section).

For the past 18 months or so (it started in the same month that we had our disagreement), a user at several IP addresses in the 32.218.x.x range has been claiming that this article is overly detailed. I take it that this is a genuine opinion - which, of course, he/she is perfectly entitled to.

The only problem is: he/she is not pointing out the things that he/she believes make this article overly detailed.

I have tried to get him/her to point out these things, both on the article's talk page and on the talk pages for the various IP addresses that he/she has used. I have also tried to point out to him/her that the article actually isn't that detailed - it's currently less than 15,000 bytes, compared to over 37,000 for the corresponding articles for New Jersey and Connecticut.

Again, perhaps I haven't gone about it the right way - saying "Don't make me take this matter to ANI" definitely wasn't the right thing to do. But I definitely don't want to take the matter to ANI - I know that if I do, then there's a non-zero chance that this user might consequently decide "Ah, f*** this, I'm not going to bother editing Wikipedia any more", and then I'll feel guilty again.

I do believe, though, that it would be easier for everyone involved if this user simply stated the things that he/she feels make the article overly detailed - like, for instance, plate and slogan descriptions that may be longer than they should be, or notes about certain plates that may not be entirely necessary. I honestly do not know what these things are - and how am I supposed to work them out?

You are one of the longest-serving and most prolific Wikipedians (in the top 400, I believe - whereas I've still got a long way to go before I even make the top 10,000), and before our disagreement you edited the Michigan article fairly frequently. Therefore, you probably have a good idea of the things that should go in an article on the vehicle registration plates of a US state, or a Canadian province or territory, without the article becoming overly detailed.

So, do you believe that you can help me out in this situation regarding the Wisconsin article?

Sorry that this is incredibly lengthy, BTW.

Thanks and regards, Bluebird207 (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bluebird207: I still have no interest connected to license plate articles, so I'm bowing out of anything connected to them, sorry. As a quick tip for the future, when posts are are long as yours, I tend not to read the whole thing, and possibly I don't read any part of it at all. Imzadi 1979 → 18:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks anyway. Bluebird207 (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections on the Route 66 page!

I really appreciate you taking the time to correct those typos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoxofJacks (talk • contribs) 04:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Interstate 73

Some years ago, you wanted to replace sources whose reliability was questionable so you could someday make this a good article. I objected since you wanted to remove any information that didn't have what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. I went to the North Carolina Department of Transportation but never succeeded in getting the needed information, and I can't access a lot of the other sources used by the man who you didn't regard as reliable.

It's okay, though. It has occurred to me that were you or anyone to remove the information, the article would never be comprehensive enough to reach good article status. Or at least I would object.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: I don't know what your point is, but I'll try to clarify a few things.
  • We have to be able cite our work here. That's a core policy, embodied in WP:V, and in several cases, we have to more than be able to find a source for information in an article, we actually have to provide those sources.
  • The sources we use have to be reliable, at least in the sense of how we use the term at WP:RS. That means, except in a few narrow cases, we cannot use sources that are self-published.
  • Content that needs to be sourced (direct quotations, statistics, controversial or counterintuitive statements, etc) that is not cited to a reliable source can, and should be removed at any time. If a source is found later, it could always be restored, but it shouldn't remain in an article without references.
These aren't just my opinions, they're requirements the community has determined and codified in policies and guidelines. Your objections wouldn't change those basic facts. We're a bit more lax than we should be until an article is nominated for Good Article status. Honestly, we should be starting our initial work on an article topic with the goal of GA in mind. It's a lot easier to polish an article with a good foundation than to totally rewrite something to fix core flaws like improper sourcing. Imzadi 1979 → 22:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I get that, but the sources looked good to me at the time. All I'm saying is if you want a comprehensive article, you or someone will have to find the sources. I could try the NC DOT again, but I'm not optimistic.
So the article will fail GA either on sources or comprehensiveness. Unless someone else has better luck than I did.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee: that author of that web page got his information somewhere. Have you tried reaching out to him on the sources he used? If so, you might be able to indirectly use his work to cite the content in our article by using it as a springboard to get to other sources you can directly cite. In the process, you might find nuggets of information he didn't include that we can use.
Now, I will admit that I've had a great track record at being able to research and write highway articles, but what people don't always see is the efforts and monetary expenses in real life I've expended to get there. I've made several trips to the Library of Michigan to find sources. I was lucky to have them scan several decades' worth of old highway maps, but I've also mined some of their other resources. I drove to the WisDOT Library in Madison just to research the history sections of the US 8 and US 141 articles. In short, there's a lot of trips to many different libraries, not just e-mail inquiries and online searches. You just might have to do some of the same regarding your chosen topics if you want to bring articles up to higher assessment levels. Imzadi 1979 → 22:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I've gone to a number of libraries, but I don't make as much effort as you. And I don't have the same desire for good article status. I';ve always hoped others would make the additional effort after I got things started.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Merging references

I noticed your recent edit to Interstate 80 in California merging the citation. How do you do that? Kevon kevono (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 10:13 (PT)

References can be named, and once named, they can be repeated. For example, if you need to cite a web page, the first time you'd type out:
<ref name="web">{{cite web ... }}</ref>
Then when you need to reuse the same reference again, just add:
<ref name="web"/>.
As long as that name, in this case web matches, the server will repeat the same footnote in the second location. Imzadi 1979 → 17:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Kevon kevono:. Imzadi 1979 → 04:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Transclusion

Is that not done anymore? I thought the bot had missed it when I started the review, so I did it. Apologies if that was out of order. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Coemgenus: the bot added it, and I removed it. The review is linked from the GA box at the top of the page (or from {{Article history}} when that is implemented to consolidate various reviews), and since we don't transclude FAC/FLC and other reviews on talk pages, I don't see any reason to leave GAN reviews there after the reviews conclude. I regularly remove the transclusion from articles I've nominated as unnecessary at that point. Imzadi 1979 → 18:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, it's all the same to me. I was just curious about your reasons. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Canada-us border

Use Canada-US border. It's better. It's more descriptive. It makes more sense to people from outside the US or in Canada near the US. Most of the links to the Canada-US border article use the text Canada-US. Why do you object? Alaney2k (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Alaney2k: when the subject is clearly about an American topic, like a subpage of Portal:United States on a state highway in the US, or otherwise directly connected to the US as a topic, it's redundant to insist on the "US" part when we have only one "Canadian border". In short, the piped text you insist on changing isn't wrong, and given the articles, the meaning should already be clear. It just doesn't need to be changed. Imzadi 1979 → 05:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
It's an improvement. That's what I am trying to get across. It's more encyclopedic. It's more informative. To use Canadian implies it is a Canadian thing, but it's not, it's a joint thing. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia open to the world. Let's not use regional wording but good encyclopedic wording. Alaney2k (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Again, when the article is clearly about a topic connected to the US, what other border would it be? Yes, it is a Canadian thing; it's the American border with Canada. I got negative feedback when writing articles about elements of the United States Numbered Highway System and mentioning that said highway was in the "US state of Michigan" after already mentioning that it was "US Highway X (US X)", and yet you're saying that we need to add back redundancies in our writing when any reader with a modicum of good sense already knows that a border is a joint thing and can assume one party when given the other one? Sorry, your reasoning falls flat and produces stilted language when it isn't necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 05:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
When it is connected to another country, it adds an international scope. And it is a joint thing. As for your example, I believe it is normal and policy to state the nationality of an article if it is relevant. State by itself is ambiguous. Maybe Americans don't feel that way and you got objections. I don't see how stilted applies to a list article, or links in a table. As for wording, many of these articles need more work on the wording. This is not addressing that and that is outside using a better descriptive link. I am sorry that you are unwilling to accept this improvement. Alaney2k (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Another thought, but Canada only has a land border with one other country. Since a land highway can't cross the maritime border between Canada and Greenland, let alone a specific state highway like New York State Route 22, "Canadian border" can logically only refer to one item. Given that the rest of the writing establishes an American context for the subject, again it has to be clear which border is meant. And if that weren't enough, a reader could click on the piped link, or just hover his/her cursor over the link until the tool tip appears, to get "Canada–United states border" to appear. Insisting on only way of writing and not allowing for context produces poor and formulaic prose, not the "prose [that[ is engaging and of a professional standard" we aspire to in our FA criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 06:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
One of the pages you insisted on changing back is Portal:United States/Selected location/23‎‎. I'm sorry, but the title of the portal of which that is a subpage clearly establishes 1000% of the context for the prose in that situation. Every other article I've reverted clearly states something along the lines of "Foo is a highway in the US state of Bar" or "US Highway X (US X) is a ...", again clearly establishing that the topic is connected to the country immediately south of you. Context is everything, and good writing eliminates unnecessary redundancies based on the context. Imzadi 1979 → 06:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Given that the article starts with: "The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; ISTEA, pronounced Ice-Tea) is a United States federal law" (emphasis added), what other Canadian border could it be? I guess I slept through geography class if the answer is the maritime border between Canada and St. Pierre and Miquelon. Contextual clues like that very definition allow us to be concise by dropping redundant wording in our writing without sacrificing meaning. Imzadi 1979 → 06:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Interstate 73 revisited

You would probably be happy with the sources for U.S. Route 70 in North Carolina. That article has recently gone through a major upgrade. The person who did this might know how to get the sources we need. I tried and didn't have much luck, but there seems to be an archive that looks official, rather than being collected by someone without editorial oversight (but you have to understand I thought that's what this other collection was). However it is done, I'm hoping it can be.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: we do have the archive of AASHTO's committee minutes over at WP:USRD/AASHTO, which is a good place for various official changes and approvals related to Interstate and US Highways. It also appears that NCDOT has an archive of the old official state road maps online as well as various route change documents. Combine those three archives with the various news articles Washuotaku used, and everything meets our core policies on reliable sources except the BridgeHunter.com site. Just remember, that core policy applies to every article, not just those that we nominate for GA, although GAN is the first time we may tighten our citations to follow those policies. Maybe those archives can be used to replace citations on the I-73 article, I don't know at the moment.
We also have some newspaper archive options through WP:The Wikipedia Library. I've had quite a bit of luck with Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive.com, but your experience with them might vary based on what papers are available in those databases. Imzadi 1979 → 19:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
What sources you need? --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:US Route 70 Bypass (Goldsboro, North Carolina)

Thanks for correcting U.S. Route 70 Bypass (Goldsboro, North Carolina). Sadly, the talk page didn't transfer with it and I'm not versed how to do move/delete requests on wiki. :( --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of power stations in Sri Lanka/archive3

Hey there! If you believe the issues in the above nomination are resolved, may I ask for your support, please? :) Rehman 14:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

California Highways

Read this:

www.cahighways.org/aboutme/

Does this define the writer of CAHighways (Daniel Faigin) as a professional California road dude (don't know formal word :/) and the recognition of [5] not being a SPS, or not?

From a monitor of California's highways, Kevon kevono (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 15:48 (PDT)
@Kevon kevono: in short, no. His expertise is in computer science, not history nor transportation planning. Imzadi 1979 → 22:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kevon kevono: as an aside, please update your signature to include the missing </div> tag so that the comments of others after yours will not have their fonts changed. Additionally, you shouldn't be trying to claim any special role regarding California highway articles. Imzadi 1979 → 23:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank-you for reviewing, you are greatly appreciated! High Five!!! Chickee 22:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Revertion of Edit on Interstate 69 in Michigan

Why did you revert my edit when I was making the category match the OTHERs in the Category:Interstate 69!  If my edit was wrong then you need to fix the others that were in the category before I made my edits! -- (M o r p h | C | T) 22:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Because those subarticles of Interstate 69 should be at the top of the category tree, not buried among the 6s. –Fredddie™ 22:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jrooksjr: ^^what he got typed out faster than I could type. I already standardized the others, and we don't need to use the parentheses in the sort key because no one, outside of the wikicode, will see that. Imzadi 1979 → 22:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I used the parentheses because as I mentioned above, I was making them match the 1st one I seen which used parentheses -- (M o r p h | C | T) 22:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Most other article categories lack the parentheses, so you were matching a aberration, not the standard, Jrooksjr. (P.S. Can I suggest updating your signature text to more closely match your actual account name? It makes it quite difficult to mentally equate account names that show up in notifications, edit histories and watch lists with comments on talk pages.) Imzadi 1979 → 22:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Signature changed -- (Jrooksjr | C | T) 22:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

I was blocked from #wikipedia-en-road while I was away, do you know why this happened? Cards84664 (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You were not blocked (Imzadi and I would have received a notice). Are you going to the right place? #wikipedia-en-roads connect –Fredddie™ 01:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Exact message: 21:48 <freenode> Error(474): #wikipedia-en-roads Cannot join channel (+b) - you are banned Cards84664 (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

What gives?

Explain to me how a photo of its multiplex with US 40 is not relevant to the article? Seriously. Famartin (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Famartin: I never said it wasn't relevant in the article over all. However, that subsection is on the effects of the highway, and the Sideline Hill Cut is specifically mentioned. That makes that subsection a good candidate for the original photo. Imzadi 1979 → 22:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, then why did you remove the photo originally? Famartin (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The article pretty much has about the maximum number of photos that would work for the amount of text. I don't know about the original authors, but my rule of thumb is one graphic element per subsection, more if there is enough text. The article is at that level now. In other words, if you wanted to substitute a photo, that's one thing, but you also have to do so with a bit of forethought, making sure each is relevant to the adjacent text. In the first instance, you just plopped an extra photo into the article, and in the second, you swapped out a relevant photo for one less so. Imzadi 1979 → 22:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Question #2

Are you not sending out Center Line anymore? I haven't received an issue since the November 2015 issue. Erzahler (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Erzahler (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Erzahler: I can only publish issues when there is content to publish. Submissions dropped off completely this year, so there have not been any issues published in 2016. I will resume when people resume submitting stuff. Sorry, but I don't have any better answer than that. Imzadi 1979 → 23:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
No, that's fine, I was just concerned you might have ceased operations. Thank you for the explanation. When I get my computer back, I will look into possibly submitting an article. Erzahler (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring over tags

Please don't edit war over tags. It's silly and gets you blocked. Nobody else except you wants to revive a dead project, and as (AFAIK) you have not contributed any substance to any articles in it for some years (or perhaps I'm completely wrong and you could contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge?) then you just come across as a crank. Best leave it be. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already laid out my reasoning for the change on the talk page, Ritchie333. As I noted there, if the project is so dead, the idea should be floated to merge it into the European task force for HWY, but until then, they're actually still separate projects with different scopes. Both banners can handle the ACR tag, so there's no need for the redundancy that does create other minor issues in other places. Also, restoring a proper correction isn't "edit warring" last time I checked, especially when a full rationale is provided. You just type faster than me right now. Imzadi 1979 → 11:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
A USRD member edit warring to get their favoured point of view? Please, help me find my surprised face, I'm sure I left it somewhere! UKRD is dead as a dodo, stop trying to deny it. Jeni (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
As soon as you go beyond bold (you), revert (me), then the next re-revert is edit warring, and "my edits were right, so I wasn't edit warring" is the oldest excuse in the book. It's not edit warring that warrants milder than "watch it", but I've seen a number of editors who are surprised to discover that 3RR applies to them when a block is received. Don't let the same thing happen to you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit of a consistency nut. While I'm not opposed to removing the UKRD tags and replacing it with the HWY tag, IMHO they all should be removed, or they all should stay. --Rschen7754 14:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, FWIW Ritchie, this comes awfully close to threatening to block, which if you did it would be a violation of WP:INVOLVED. --Rschen7754 14:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Whatever makes people want to improve articles is always the best option. I'm not inclined to block someone even if I wasn't WP:INVOLVED in the first place. See User:Gerda Arendt/User talk before you block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
If it was intended to be a "friendly" reminder, perhaps you should leave out the word "block" next time. Personally, I find this thread a bit odd because it does take two people to edit war, so simply making the decision to not revert on your part would have sufficed and stopped the edit war. The edit war has stopped, but this is feedback for how to handle it next time.
Anyway, I personally don't care which tag is on the article, just as long as the same is applied to all UK road articles. Perhaps a discussion should be started in a more central location about this? --Rschen7754 18:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry Rschen, but who died and made you God? What right do you have to dictate at what rate articles are switched over to the new template? You of all people should know that Wikipedia is a work in progress and these things take time. Editors will go at whatever pace they see fit and you can't dictate that. Get off your USRD high horse. I know you're probably all chatting about this on IRC right now, so will imminently all pile in and close ranks - I've witnessed it before, I know how you operate. Jeni (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

US 31 Muskegon

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Road_junction_lists#What_to_include says to include "All grade-separated interchanges, without exception". I fail to see how that is not a grade-separated interchange. Webster Avenue passes under BUS US 31 northbound, making this a half-Y interchange. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: that crossing is at-grade. If you zoom in on the satellite view far enough, you can clearly see the stop lines on the "ramp" from southbound Bus. US 31 to Webster Avenue where the "ramp" crossing northbound Bus. US 31. This is confirmed by looking at Google Street View, so no, it's not a half-Y interchange. Imzadi 1979 → 07:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You're looking at the wrong one. I'm talking about the other intersection on the other side of downtown Muskegon. As seen here, Webster Avenue clearly passes under BUS US 31. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I still wouldn't include it. That's not really an interchange, not in the spirit of what the guideline intends. Imzadi 1979 → 20:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I-840

You win, I'm never touching that article again. If this is actually standard for road articles, I'm glad I never got involved beyond I-840, as these are (IMO) very poor, redundant layout choices. Cheers. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no competition, Huntster, however we have used the smaller infobox in history sections. For example, take a look at M-553 (Michigan highway), a featured article that uses one for its predecessor designation, CR 553, and has a related highway (M-554) with its own small infobox in the appropriate section. I agree that it didn't need its own subsection, which is why I shifted it up. That article still needs a route description written, which, if put in the conventional location ahead of the history, would separate the small box from the main one at the top. Imzadi 1979 → 23:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi

So I'm assuming there's a policy for only having one infobox, right? Cards84664 (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is not. However, there are better ways to convey information like that than ill-formatted infoboxes. Personally, I would rewrite that bulleted list into prose first. Then we can think about inserting {{Infobox road small}}. –Fredddie™ 02:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Why couldn't we just use it with the ohio parameter on? Cards84664 (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Cards84664: that wouldn't be ideal either. The extra browse links at the bottom don't need to appear a second time. I strongly second Fredddie}'s comment though: convert the list into actual prose, then we can think about what else to add. I'll not that many Featured Articles lack what you're trying to do. M-28 (Michigan highway) has had different termini over the years, yet the history section only has one infobox, for M-178, a highway M-28 completely supplanted in 1941. I can come up with other examples, but in short, what you're trying to do is not needed, yet what is needed (turning that list into actual cited prose) isn't being done. Imzadi 1979 → 05:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Roads v Cemeteries

I am sure you don't remember but in 2011 an article for a cemetery that I did for deletion. You have spent a lot of time building up Michigan Roads. I have posted a question on WikiProject Death asking for their thoughts on this. I would like to know why you think it is ok to have articles for roads which for the majority of people have little to no real impact on history or daily lives. (Yes some people may die on them, or an event might occur, but overall they are utilitarian). I checked and Encyclopaedia Britannica has no Interstate articles for each road. I did find one Road article Route 66 was on EB. Not to mention the state roads. Like Kentucky_Route_101. Which is just a stub. On the other hand several Cemeteries have articles in Encyclopaedia Britannica.

So my question to you is you have your desire to further road projects which is fine. Why can't you allow those who care about history and are tired of seeing bodies dug up and moved over in some cases paved over start building list of cemeteries to start building articles for? The article you deleted had a national medal of Honor winner buried there I was trying to build the page off. Anyway I am sure you don't remember I had to look your name up on my talk page. As I have become a professor and work and write books on history I have posted a question to the death project, if you care please feel free to comment.Jsgoodrich (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jsgoodrich: I remember, and I stand by my opinion from five years ago in that specific case based on the information provided. Not all cemeteries are going to be notable for our purposes. Ones that have entries in the Encyclopaedia Britannica definitely should have an article. Wikipedia is both a generalist encyclopedia, like Britannica, and it is a specialist work, like Jane's All the World's Fighting Ships. That's why we can, and do, have articles on more obscure niche topics than what Britannica or Collier's Encyclopedia would cover. If there were an Encyclopedia of Cemeteries, then any listed in that book should eventually have articles here, assuming that said book isn't purely a directory. I also note that notability is not inherited; your MoH recipient should have an article, but that doesn't mean his final resting place does.
In short, our base guideline is WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Coverage in various encyclopedias is one way to meet that guideline. I can explain in greater detail why the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System meets and exceeds that guideline, and then why per WP:SIZE we have to spin out various lists and other articles to have a complete coverage of the topic. Even with that, you'd find that some highways do not have articles; as one example, M-160 (Michigan highway) redirects to the specific row in the table on List of state trunkline highways in Michigan. Imzadi 1979 → 13:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
To me roads are a waste of time, every cemetery in America has coverage on it local papers, burials, who started, who runs it. Again, you can have your view and you can have your road pages. Something I think is a waste of time. I included you on the comment so you could go there. I could care less why you think Michigan Trunkline system should or should not be covered. Wiki servers can handle your pages. I think your attitude on other projects or people trying to start them shows your lack of maturity. "I Think roads need articles" it is a view. You got other roadophils to help and started a project. Your attacking other projects bugged me. So I am going to revive my view and see if I can get other editors to help. If I get that then I plan to help preserve history. If you don't like speak up against me. I am not afraid of debate. I teach American Government and hold three law degrees (J.D. and two Masters). I think your wrong and now I have to show other people that. Roads are roads we spend money on them people drive on them, my brother in law works for a company that builds them. Very view are significant to history (local history yes) But the need for a article for every road is in my view a joke. Unlike you I have no desire to stop a project, I think information leads to a better citizens. So I won't be working to shut down your road projects. I think you should step back and look at you never gave anyone a chance to build up the project I wanted to build. You made a determination you did not like it. I can find million of stub article that no one has clicked on in weeks or months. They stay. You got a bug up your but and decided because you are from Michigan you deleted (sorry proposed it to be deleted). Another editor did something that started to bug me and I decided that because wiki allows us to build support. I am reviving that cemeteries have great value than roads. I did not hide from you I came to your wall and announced it. Just like Martin Luther nailing his views to the church door. So if you think I am wrong build support and make sure my project does not take off. Otherwise allow other pojects to grow before you take them out. Jsgoodrich (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jsgoodrich: I think you need to re-read the situation. I've never attacked another project related to cemeteries. We require article subject to be notable before we write articles about them. The General Notability Guideline (GNG) says that means there is "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". I've actually agreed that there are cemeteries that meet that hurdle. You mentioned Encyclopedia Britannica and their coverage topics, and if a subject is covered there, it should have an article here. EB would be a textbook example of a "reliable source independent of the subject", and if they cover a topic, you can be sure others do too to pass the "significant coverage" half of the GNG rule.
If you can point to such sources about the Mottville Cemetery, it should have an article. However, no one has pointed to such coverage, nor have I located it myself. On that basis, I nominated it for deletion. Such a nomination opens a discussion, and if at the end of the discussion it is determined that the notability threshold isn't met, then it's deleted. If the discussion determines that the sources exist, then it's kept. That's all it is, nothing more or less. Imzadi 1979 → 19:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I love being called stupid no matter how policy you do. I am familiar with the issue of notability. I have been an editor on wiki for almost 10 years. Again you can do what you can to stop me moving the project forward. However, I think in the end you will lose or I would not spend my time on it. You say the places where people who lives had lives are written about have less notable than a road. You are either a very cold person or you have never had to deal with death. Either way I gave you notice as I am sick of good people being driving off by editors that steam roll other. Which is what you did 5 years ago. I stopped editing for a while because of you. Jsgoodrich (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jsgoodrich: I'm not calling you stupid, and I'm certainly not stopping you from editing. I'm don't believe I've ever said that any article topic is more important than another. However, you've seen fit to call my time spent writing here a "waste", and then insinuated above that I apparently don't "care about history" because I nominated an article for deletion five years ago. I've only ever commented on articles, not people.

So let me break this down to a few bullet points for the sake of brevity:

  • I have a specialty in my writing interests, as do most of us here. That that I've been successful in spending enough time and money to get some articles to Featured Article/List status doesn't make those topics more important, it just means I was crazy enough to expend the effort to do that.
  • Much of my writing is centered around the very history of those roadways, like the highway Henry Ford stopped or an 18th century wagon trail turned major state highway turned long-distance side road. If those topics don't interest you, don't read them.
  • Cemeteries warrant articles like any other topic. Nothing I've said any place says otherwise. All topics have to meet the threshold for inclusion though.
  • Five years ago I found an article that didn't meet the threshold for inclusion. It was nominated, others agreed, and it was deleted. Someone else put a link to that on an article I watch, so I looked at it and found something that didn't meet expectations for a Wikipedia article. Had someone fixed it, it could have been retained then, or it could be restarted now. In any event, I didn't act in a solo capacity, and others agreed that the article didn't merit inclusion, at that time.
  • I have a multi-generational connection to a specific cemetery in Northern Michigan that extends back well over a century, almost a century and a half. Without the right sources, any article that I might write about that should be deleted under our rules, even though it's the final resting place for a Civil War general and hundreds of that city's residents.
  • I've argued for the deletion of road and road-related articles several times. In just the last year, there was: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Prescott Loop Freeway for a roadway that doesn't yet exist, but there have also been Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise Drive (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elm Street (Leavenworth, Kansas) and a couple of dozen articles on unremarkable autobahn interchanges in Germany which do exist and don't rise to being worthy of articles.

I wish you well in organizing some project around cemeteries, and I hope that you can find the types of sources needed to keep those articles around. Imzadi 1979 → 23:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Wisconsin town names

I noticed you're on a campaign to change the titles of Wisconsin town articles. You do realize that the reason many have (town) in the title is because there is another community of the same name in the same county? For example, there is both a Town of Beaver and a hamlet of Beaver in Marinette County. The same goes for your other edits to Wisconsin town article titles. Please discuss this matter on the WikiProject Wisconsin talk page before going any further? 32.218.38.203 (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@32.218.38.203: I'm not on any campaign to do any such thing. I created a few redirects so that U.S. Route 8 and U.S. Route 141 would continue to link to the intended locations, albeit through a redirect. {{WIint}} uses a parameter called |town= to link to a town in WI that's displayed in the location column of the junction list table. When we specify |town=Pembine, it automatically links to [[Pembine (town), Wisconsin|Town of Pembine]], and I created the redirect so that readers would still get to "Pembine, Wisconsin". When we specify |town=Beaver and |ctdab=Marinette, it links to [[Beaver (town), Marinette County, Wisconsin|Town of Beaver]]. Again, if I didn't create the appropriate redirect, there would be a redline in the article's junction list table after I switched the template to use the appropriate parameters.
This is all I did, and nothing more. There is no campaign to change article titles, just a few cheap redirects to ensure that an article continues to link to the intended locations after a template change. Imzadi 1979 → 02:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Imzadi, I'm working on the TFA text now. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

For a TFA blurb, Dank, can we play up the date connection somehow? That date is the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. That's a fact not in the roadway article, but still ties into the date. H-58 is the main access road to the attractions within the park, and after an Act of Congress, the National Park Service was able to contribute funding toward getting the middle section of the roadway within the park rebuilt and paved. The rest of the road east of Grand Marais is a bit of an afterthought in comparison to the part within the park. That part has become a bit of a tourist destination in and of itself, at least with motorcyclists and other drivers who enjoy the drive. I might even suggest de-emphasizing the pre-park history of the roadway as well if needed to keep within the length limits. Imzadi 1979 → 21:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
That's a great approach, but I'm not sure how to do it. Could you take a whack at the TFA text? - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've done the TFA text based on the current lead. If you can move material some of the material supporting the anniversary date into the article, I'll be happy to try to work it into the TFA text. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dank: I misspoke above, the date is in the article already: "The Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore was authorized on October 15, 1966, when President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the enabling legislation.[29]" I did a little editing to the blurb to add the date and swap out historical details. Imzadi 1979 → 04:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The Consairway logo can be loaded onto en.wikipedia with the {{Non-free logo}} template

I believe that the Consairway logo image was removed from Commons because it lacked the correct license. However, you should still be able to upload it to English Wikipedia as long as you include the {{Non-free logo}} template. Peaceray (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Peaceray: I already did that with the appropriate templates so that it is back in the article now. Imzadi 1979 → 23:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Michigan State Library - WIR

As requested by @Astinson (WMF):, here is the thread for talking about the WIR. Mitch32(The ripest peach is highest on the tree.) 20:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Imzadi1979:: its great that you are trying to figure out how to get more engaged in GLAM-Wiki and developed a WIR role. There are a lot of opportunities, especially when working with Research Libraries. Though no-one explicitely coordinates GLAM or WIR roles internationally, most affiliates can provide some kind of support in developing your relationship (in the United States, that is typically WP:WMDC and WP:WMNYC but also the other meta:Wikimedia_movement_affiliates. For academic and research libraries, its often best to approach them with the various strategies documented at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Research_libraries: unlike other GLAMs where the focus of the partnership is frequently on rare items provided to Commons, Libraries have much more depth of resources and aligned interests that might be useful to explore other strategies. @Tokyogirl79: is actually filling a similar role at the Library of Virginia (see her user account at @Tokyogirl79LVA: for her work with the library). Let me know what questions you have, and I am happy to point you at resources. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Michigan State Library - WIR

As requested by @Astinson (WMF):, here is the thread for talking about the WIR. Mitch32(The ripest peach is highest on the tree.) 20:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Imzadi1979:: its great that you are trying to figure out how to get more engaged in GLAM-Wiki and developed a WIR role. There are a lot of opportunities, especially when working with Research Libraries. Though no-one explicitely coordinates GLAM or WIR roles internationally, most affiliates can provide some kind of support in developing your relationship (in the United States, that is typically WP:WMDC and WP:WMNYC but also the other meta:Wikimedia_movement_affiliates. For academic and research libraries, its often best to approach them with the various strategies documented at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Research_libraries: unlike other GLAMs where the focus of the partnership is frequently on rare items provided to Commons, Libraries have much more depth of resources and aligned interests that might be useful to explore other strategies. @Tokyogirl79: is actually filling a similar role at the Library of Virginia (see her user account at @Tokyogirl79LVA: for her work with the library). Let me know what questions you have, and I am happy to point you at resources. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
At this point, Astinson (WMF), I'm not sure what questions I have. It's more like needing information to see what's possible. I'd want to have an immediate focus on getting various resources scanned and put online. The Archives of Michigan, which occupies the other half of the same complex with the Library of Michigan, has started some digitization, and I'd like to process a whole series of specific documents to get them online and accessible. Beyond that, there's the general outreach to get more editors/more editing in place. This could be something as simple as pursuing funding for equipment for a scanning project to a full-scale role with the institution(s). Imzadi 1979 → 06:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Most resources are discoverable via either WP:GLAM or outreach:GLAM. The goal of the GLAM partnerships, is to reach some type of open collaboration which helps the institution fulfill their mission. Usually, getting to that point involves both a) some initial activities, like editathons for WP:ArtAndFeminism or meta:1lib1ref and b) finding an internal advocate who you can engage with for more support and figuring out what would help them. I would also consider reading this blog post and the associated White Papers to get a sense of what motivates libraries to participate. Unlike volunteers, that come into Wikipedia with the assumption that what they are doing is relevant and the best strategy for sharing knowledge, libraries have other motivations for participating Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Imzadi, here's another one of your FAC nominations at TFA. I see this was promoted a few years ago, so please check for things like dead links. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dank: Why run it on the 39th anniversary of completion instead of waiting a year for a nice round 40th? Imzadi 1979 → 20:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Because I have nothing else with a date connection for that day. I'm even more more enthusiastic about getting some kind of date connection in the TFA than Chris is (and Brian was, sadly he's stepped down). After we bring a 3rd coord on board, I'm going to scour FAs for date connections, and hopefully that will turn up something new, or maybe a new article over the next year will give us a date connection for next November. Btw, I see there was a problem with vandalism on Interstate Highway articles starting in the first quarter of the year; has that been an ongoing problem? - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and if it runs for the 39th, it can never run again (under the usual rules), including the 40th anniversary next year. So if you scoured later for something, but run it this year, well...

We have a LTA situation with an individual based out of Puerto Rico who has an unhealthy obsession with Interstate Highways and other topics. The vandalism issue is ongoing, but intermittent. Imzadi 1979 → 20:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, but I might find something other than a road when I scour, and that would fix next year's problem. After I finish scouring, sure, personally, I'll be in favor of giving nominators broader discretion than they have now ... but I'll have to wait on that until we get the new coord in and they get up to speed, then hold a pow-wow on that issue. I'll do what I can. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
One ray of hope I can offer: I may be able to get my scouring done over the next 3 weeks ... and if I find nothing, then I'll be fine with putting this off. It's a big job and I don't know yet how long it will take me. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

What is this "next year's problem"? Why does November 21, 2016, specifically have to have a date connection for the TFA? What's wrong with using a non-date-connected item this year, knowing that then next year you'd not only have the date connection, but a nice round anniversary? I guess I don't understand the logic at work here. Either way, after this year or next, you'd be out of a FAs connected to November 21 unless something is nominated.

Frankly, some of the hassles connected with TFA are off-putting enough that if I didn't need a few more FAs to finalize a Featured Topic, that at times I feel like ceasing all future FAC plans completely. Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep you updated on how the scouring effort is going, and reevaluate before Nov 21. - Dank (push to talk) 21:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Without going into the complications TFA is facing right now ... yes, fine, I'll un-schedule this and add it to TFARP for next November. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Question about "Formed" list in Interstate hwy history

Hello-- What does "Formed" indicate in the list of Interstate highways? Do you treat it as "year when first Interstate signage appeared on route?" I thought "Formed" meant "year number was designated" and made my edits accordingly, using old newspaper articles as a source. I attempted to cite those sources by creating a footnote after the date, but it wouldn't let me. Either that or I wasn't doing it correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burns581 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Burns581: I've always gone with the year the first segment opened under that number, allowing the traveling public to drive on a highway by that number. As for the footnote situation, {{routelist row}} only accepts years or ISO-style dates in |established=, but it has |established_ref= to handle any footnotes and citations. Imzadi 1979 → 14:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Imzadi1979,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:AB Infobox road small

Please look at the template to see the substantial difference in that this allows for route termination parameters whereas the parent template does not. This is a significant difference for implementation on a couple Alberta highway articles. It is a completely different template whose syntax I am still in the process of differentiation, if you have such an issue with it we can discuss it further at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. -- Acefitt 00:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That's still really a minor difference, and you could have proposed an addition at Template talk:Infobox road small instead of forking to another template with limited uses. Remember, any future changes in the one template would necessitate changes in the other to continue to have basic uniformity, or even basic functioning if the subtemplates are changed. In short, it's a maintenance issue against forking. Also, the original design behind infobox road small was to have an infobox with very minimal appearance for repeated uses, which is why it only has a location and not termini and definitely not junctions. Imzadi 1979 → 00:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
It ultimately will not be a minor difference, because on Alberta Highway 2 I am in the process of collaborating with other editors on a different implementation of Infobox road and a lesser template, this one, which will require additional parameters. I am in the process of modifying this template in response to that discussion, so I'd prefer that my work not be CSD while I do so. I understand the original intent of road small, which is why I'm not using road small and created my own. I have no interest in proposing changes to the parent template because they are not needed. If in a few days the template still does not meet your requirements, we can discuss it then. -- Acefitt 00:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Alberta Highway 2

I don't doubt that you have produced some high amount of featured content, but I'm not sure if that means the USRD manual of style should be be imposed on the WP:CARD wikiproject when User:Hwy43 and others established a method by consensus. Please join the discussion on Talk:Alberta Highway 2 if you have any interest in helping us to reach a consensus. -- Acefitt 02:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

If the biggest issue is the length of the infobox, you have three options:
  1. Update the map to minimize the vertical size
  2. Minimize the number of junctions (we use 10 as a maximum in the US; Hwy 2 has 11)
  3. Drop the cities/villages/towns as unnecessary. Most of the important ones are already listed and linked in the junction list above it, and they all should be mentioned in the prose. I'll note that Ontario also omits most of these extra locations, so it's not a US-only technique.

Really, those are the only three options you have to shrink the length of the infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 02:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

tc

Hello! I noticed you changed my edit on the TC page.. so I decided to click your page and discovered you are also from Traverse City. Me too! Born and raised :) just saying hey! --Jennica✿Ping Me! 08:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Imzadi1979. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Baker City, Oregon

The page is massively linked.Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: currently "Baker City, Oregon" is a redirect to Baker City, but per our naming convention (WP:USPLACE), the longer title is the one that should be used. If the redirect were deleted to make way for the page move, everything that links to the redirect will instead directly link to the intended article, which is what I've requested. Imzadi 1979 → 18:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

16 Ave, Calgary

Still thinking this one might be better off in the highway wikiproject. Look at it here for example... it's a 90 km/h (56 mph) expressway with interchanges. Can we put it in both projects? -- Acefitt 00:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

We've normally put the city-level articles in the streets projects and left the state- or provincial-level stuff in the highway project as eventually the city-level articles diverge in terms of content on public transit, adjacent buildings/landmarks, etc, and they cover much more minor intersections than we would at the state- or provincial-level. Imzadi 1979 → 00:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense, but due to the incompetence of Alberta planners this road (and to a lesser extent Yellowhead Trail (Edmonton)) are anomalous in that they are both a busy surface street (in which one could delve into that extra detail) but highways too... 16 Ave for example is slated to have the biggest interchange in Canada outside of Toronto at its west end. That pretty much forces it into the highway project. -- Acefitt 00:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

AIV report

Re that AIV report you just made, I've blocked 2602:301:77e9:920::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for one week as a result. If vandalism continues from that range after that block expires let me know and I'll block it for longer. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Genghis Khan Edition Conquest of the Wiki World Triple Crown

I am pleased to award you this Genghis Khan Edition Conquest of the Wiki World Triple Crown for your outstanding contributions to Wikipedia (no actual crown is necessary when you're this good... just show up in white robes and ordinary editors will quiver in your presence). Freikorp (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Route 127 in Kentucky

Hi, Imzadi1979. I'm afraid I got carried away disambiguating links to Bannered routes of U.S. Route 127 (disambiguation). The Bannered routes of U.S. Route 127 got moved to Bannered routes of U.S. Route 127 in Kentucky, so I was going through old links to update them.

I don't know very much about road articles—just dab pages. You corrected two of my edits (on Kentucky Route 390 and Kentucky Route 1590), but I wonder if you'd check my other recent edits. The articles are:

I'm sorry to make extra work for you, but we do need to be sure that nothing links to the dab page itself. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

These have all been fixed now. Morriswa caught several; I got the others. — Gorthian (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Gorthian, I was glad to help correct the link formats. Let me know if there are any more that I could help change. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Morriswa and Imzadi1979: If that sort of redirect is common in the roads articles, it would probably be a good idea to tag them as {{redr|with possibilities}}. I saw more than one with wrong tags on them, including {{redr|from incorrect name}}. The wording on that one says Pages that use this link should be updated to link directly to the target, which is just what you don't want. — Gorthian (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Alberta Highway 4

I had intended to make a proposal for an NHS implementation in a few of the Alberta infoboxes, but based on the response to my last attempt for modifications to {{Infobox road small}} for our needs, it is highly unlikely for any such proposal to succeed. Therefore, in the end it will be as I had to do on Alberta Highway 2, because I'll sooner find gold in my backyard than get {{Infobox road}} to ever work properly for our implementation, or convince you road masters that the template is not flexible enough. This was just my first test of it, but eventually it will be in a format that is to your satisfaction as it will somewhat mirror the Interstate or state route format (highly unlikely it will contain a navigational listing as it did today) or you'll simply get tired of reverting me as I try different things. I suspect the latter, though either outcome is fine by me.

For example, if you look at Alberta Highway 4 before I just removed {{AB browse}}, it adds text in the browse parameter, i.e. the NHS link, between List of Alberta provincial highways and then the nav buttons for the next and previous highways. This does not make sense, and it is therefore impossible with state=AB to incorporate an NHS link in any kind of logical fashion similar to those used by USRD. I understand that you wanted to clear the template errors as opposed to looking to see why I did it that way. Also map_custom with padding does not call an error as User:Hwy43 implemented several of his maps at less than 280px with no issue. Similarly, my maps look better at ~240px in the infobox, with a bit of padding. -- Acefitt 05:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I appreciate that you want to improve the infobox and doubly appreciate that you're trying things yourself, but could we do it in a sandbox in the future? By removing |province=AB and adding |country=CAN, the rural municipalities parameter was throwing each live article into the error category. I foresee having to add a |type=Core to replace |type=Hwy in order to trigger the core highways and NHS links. Is the "core highway" terminology unique to Alberta or is it national (national would make the coding easier). A while back, I added a TCH type that triggered the NHS links, but I believe I only set it up to work on the national TCH article. That should be fixed. –Fredddie™ 06:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Acefitt: there is a |system= parameter that adds content above the default links from the {{infobox road/browselinks/CAN}} subtemplate. However, it doesn't seem to work, and hasn't seemed to have worked in a while, meaning we've had to stuff content into the |browse= parameter. It should be fixed. (As a side note, the browselinks subtemplate can switch the output based on the type of a roadway; M-6 (Michigan highway), H-58 (Michigan county highway), Forest Highway 16, and Brockway Mountain Drive all have different outputs as just one example, even though they're all |state=MI. So if NHS status needs to be added, a |type=NHS or some other type could be added that triggers the extra link, but otherwise aliases to the regular type for shields and such.)
As for {{jct}}, Module:Road data/strings/CAN/SK holds the data to handle the output rendered by the template for Saskatchewan's highways, and it's freely editable. Each Canadian province has a similar module, and they also handle the graphics/links/abbreviations for the previous/next part of the infobox browsers. So if the output of {{jct|province=SK|Hwy|1}} is deficient for some reason, perhaps it could be tweaked through there. Imzadi 1979 → 07:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The code is not deficient, I'm not changing the module because it does not need to be changed as there are instances where its output is desirable. In the backwards society known as Alberta a number of highways are never referred to by their numbers aside from in technical documents. That is why in several cases I and User:MuzikMachine simply use the shield and the WP:COMMONNAME, or else some junction lists would not make sense locally. Additionally, I do not want to remove the "TCH" that appears in brackets with {{jct}}, there are simply instances where it is redundant and does not need to appear (like in terminus parameters) so I again go manual and the default text in the module can remain. Presumably this is seldom an issue in the US, else that template would be more flexible. It'd be great if something so simple didn't break {{infobox road}} and to my knowledge it does not.
Back to NHS - of course I did try the system parameter which did not give the desired output. I then attempted to find some kind of solution that would give me free reign over the browse parameter. Adding yet another type=NHS and further complicating the template seems unnecessary, all I really care for is the browse field to be a blank slate so I can put a line of text, manually use {{AB browse}} and not have the template shooting flares to the moon about being broken despite rendering fine. -- Acefitt 07:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Acefitt: so in short, you need |system= to work as it is intended. If it did, |system='''[[National Highway System (Canada)|National Highway System]]''' would insert the desired link before the automated system link(s) in the system section of the infobox. You're not actually editing the browser, you're editing and inserting content in the system portion, and for whatever reason, that parameter seems to be broken. As for the errors, only infoboxes with |province=AB (or two other provinces) can use |rural_municipalities=; |country=CAN won't work, and that generates an error. The various location types are set to only work in the jurisdictions where they apply, or they flag the error.
As for {{jct}}, I would say that your method of manually coding the junction is deficient on two levels. The first, and more minor, is that you're not including |alt=|link= to suppress the link to the graphic's description and suppress the absence of alt text, which jct does automatically. These are done to comply with the Manual of Style. The second, and more major, is that you're improperly captioning a graphic you're displaying. By this point, I mean that in just about every other instance, we use a graphic with some sort of text explanation adjacent to the graphic. At the top of the infobox, the name of the highway appears below its marker. In a junction list entry like: CR 492, the County Road 492 graphic is followed by the linked text for the name of the roadway it represents. If you're using a numbered marker, which represents a specific numbered highway, you really need to note that with text someplace; graphics are not a proper substitute for actual text alone. There is a second template, {{jctname}} which will invert the order of a named highway and its highway number: M-28 (Veterans Memorial Highway) vs. Veterans Memorial Highway (M-28), but in either case, the highway name is still present someplace to properly caption that graphic. Imzadi 1979 → 08:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I apparently didn't get the point across because M-28 is the actual title of that article, and not Veterans Memorial Highway. I'd sooner ditch the graphic entirely for Whitemud Drive, Stoney Trail and Anthony Henday Drive to comply with MOS than be forced to put (Highway 2xx) just because a shield is there. In the infobox list on Henday for example, I can't reasonably put (Highway 14) next to Whitemud Drive because there are no Highway 14 shields on the road, it is not identified as Highway 14 on any signs and no one besides a guy in the legislature basement has ever called it anything other than Whitemud Drive or even knows it is technically designated as Highway 14. That is simply how it works in Calgary and Edmonton. No graphic is preferable to a cluttered infobox with text that would do nothing but confuse and perhaps cause each road to wrap to a 2nd line. -- Acefitt 15:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Acefitt: if the highway designation is unsigned, drop the graphic. There's ample precedent for that, for example M-331. As for {{jctname}}, my example was only to show how it is possible, with a sister template, to flip the order of highway designation and roadway name, a point you apparently missed. Imzadi 1979 → 19:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Not a point I missed, but rather one that has no bearing on what is needed for Alberta, which is best accomplished by manual use of the shield and the common name. Several of the routes are signed, but again, never referred to by their numbers. -- Acefitt 20:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Acefitt: however, those manual constructions still have an issue. To take another Michigan example: M-1 runs along Woodward Avenue, and that name has more resonance for many people than the number. (The article is titled under the number, but it could be flipped the other way.) If I just used " Woodward Avenue" in a listing, the name would not effectively caption the graphic because that is not a Woodward Avenue marker, it is an M-1 marker. (There is actually a special Woodward Avenue marker, but it's under copyright and couldn't be used anyway.) Either M-1 (Woodward Avenue) or Woodward Avenue (M-1) would because then the "M-1" designation, which is what that marker represents, is included. Imzadi 1979 → 20:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, in an actual junction list table, you have a bit more freedom because of the notes column. The destinations column could list Whitemud Drive, and then the notes could say that it is actually Hwy. 14. Imzadi 1979 → 21:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

My repsonses thus far are based on a fundamentally different approach to the purpose of the shield in {{jct}}. I see now that you're citing the text that follows the shield as a caption for the shield itself, and not a supplement to it. In that respect, I understand now... note that to simultaneously abide by this rule and by WP:UCRN would mean the removal of many shields from infoboxes. Like Anthony Henday Drive, where a couple highways are listed only so that shields are rendered and the rest are custom text. I would sooner not put any shields in the infobox than put never-used highway numbers in parenthesis. -- Acefitt 23:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Interstate 275 (Michigan) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Interstate 275 (Michigan) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 14 January 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 14, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Forensic chemistry FAC

Thanks for the source review. Just to check, in case I'm being thick, apart from still needing a spot-check, are you happy with the article from a sourcing viewpoint now? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Interstate 494 (Illinois)

@Imzadi1979:, I saw that Interstate 494 (Illinois) is just a redirect to Crosstown Expressway (Chicago). However the Lake Shore Drive was also proposed to be Interstate 494. I think that is why the disambiguation page was made. Shouldn't there be redirects for both I-494s? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that as long as it redirected to that disambiguation page, the editors fixing links to dab pages will keep tagging the I-494 entry with {{dn}}, but they keep doing it in the |route=494 parameter, which breaks the table. I think in this case though, the Crosstown is the primary subject for the topic of I-494 in Illinois, and it has a hatnote at the top of its article directing readers to the LSD article as necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 02:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox road/browselinks/USA

Hey Imzadi, what am I missing here. I made some edits to Template:Infobox road/browselinks/USA to point to some new Nebraska articles and when I put a page in to preview it, it looks fine but the changes aren't visible on the live articles. Is there a propagation delay or something, or did I just do it wrong? Thanks! Strato|sphere 04:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

must be, now it's there. Nevermind! :) Strato|sphere 04:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

FLC source review request

Imzadi, I saw that you did a source review for one of the oldest FLCs and wanted to thank you for doing that. We've been struggling to get the source reviews done since we started requiring them last year, which is slowing the whole process down. If you get some free time, would you consider offering a similar source review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of parrots/archive1? That FLC has been open since late August and we really need to make a decision on it soon. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Giants2008: there are two minor source review-related issues. I'll try to get a few sources spotchecked later on today. Imzadi 1979 → 15:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Route 27 in Georgia

Thank you for the formatting fixes you put on the article. I felt stupid messing up the Florida State Road 63 (not "Route"). LOL. However, there is another mistake that I couldn't find. One of the {{Cite GDOT map}} templates I added has an error in it. Could you figure it out? Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Morriswa: it's very possible that there are maps GDOT has added online since our initial sweep to create the template. You may just have to add the missing map into the template, if the template is giving you the "No year defined" error message instead of a citation. To do that:
  1. Open the template and click edit to get into the source code.
  2. Scroll through it to find an adjacent date or year.
  3. Copy the code for that other date or year and paste it in place, adding blank lines as needed to keep everything neat and tidy.
  4. Change the initial date/year code and then change the URL, date/year and any other details as needed to cite the map being added.
  5. Preview your edit to make sure that everything worked, and save your edit.
  6. Add the new map to Template:Cite GDOT map/testcases.
Imzadi 1979 → 17:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk: New Jersey Turnpike

Hi,

regarding the edit of "New Jersey Turnpike" I find information of vehicle collision that involved Nash equally useful as subsection "In popular culture". The death of Nobel prize mathematician Nash had no lasting impact on the roadway but nor did racing event in video game "Need for Speed: The Run" that is mentioned in the article. Therefor I don't think that this information should be omitted "if it had no lasting impact on the roadway".

Is there some other subsection where this information would be more suitable?

Note: I'm new to wiki editing and I'm not sure how to comment revisions.

Krypton85 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krypton85: first off, it's a case of undue weight to give one event an entire article section like that, and five footnotes for any section smells of desperation to prove something is more important than it is. (In most cases, we get very suspicious of any sentence that has more than one or two footnotes, to be honest.)
Second, the event had no lasting effect on the design or function of the roadway. In fact, if that event did not involve a specific individual, you would never try to include it. Unfortunately, vehicle accidents are quite common, so unless they're especially large in terms of the number of vehicles, we just don't include them. We don't include other mundane information, like how many times a highway has been repaved, or when the maintaining agency replaces the signage. (Again, there are exceptions, such as when the final highway segment was paved, or when new signage is significant for some other reason.)
Third, if we do include such an event, like the major multi-car collisions on Interstate 43, or the plane crash on Interstate 94 in Michigan, they'd be included in the "History" section of the article instead of calling out undue emphasis by giving them their own section. However, see my second point on why we should not even do that in this case because again, a car accident of this nature is especially common other than the fact of the one vehicle occupant involved.
Finally, the "In popular culture" sections aren't especially popular with many editors, and they'd be removed completely except that every Tom, Dick or Harry would come along and put them back.
So put together, the circumstances argue for including the information about Nash's death in the article on Nash, but that does not mean would should include it in the article on the turnpike, sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 05:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln Highway/Auto trails in the United States

This is regarding your removal of the tag for Category:Auto trails in the United States from Lincoln Highway simply because the article has its own subcategory within that parent category. The only scenario in which the "main article" for a particular category should absolutely not be listed in a parent category is when it comes to diffusing categories where most or all pages that could theoretically be listed in the parent category also belong in one of its subcategories. That is not the case here. The main article of a subcategory is often included in the parent category, particularly when many articles listed in the parent category do not merit their own subcategories (which is the case here). Category:Auto trails in the United States presently lists 40-something pages and 2 subcategories. The articles for the 2 auto trails that are notable enough to merit their own subcategories (Lincoln Highway and Dixie Highway) are not supposed to be excluded from being listed simply because they are more notable. (See Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE.) The category page should present a single alphabetical list of auto trails--not two separate alphabetical lists (one for subcategories and one for pages) that one must go back and forth between when looking for a specific name. To point to just one of many examples of this, see Category:Interstate Highway System. Many of the articles listed there are also "main articles" of their own subcategories, while many other articles are listed only in this parent category because they do not have subcategories of their own. Accordingly, I am re-adding the category tag to Lincoln Highway (and adding it to Dixie Highway, which I hadn't noticed previously). Jdaloner (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Texas Highways

I added the browsing links for the Texas Rec roads at the bottom of that page. To give you an example of how this will eventually depict a full set of browsing links for the whole TX system, I blue-linked every article between SH 1 and SH 17.

Browse numbered routes
← SH 17TX→ SH 1

Cards84664 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Route 76 Connector in Columbia, South Carolina

As you may have noticed, I added a section to the U.S. Route 76 in South Carolina page for the Columbia connector route. Since it exists in three segments, is there any better way to compact the section (and thus the "Major intersections" tables into one)? I have included Google Maps references for the lengths of the three segments, so I wasn't sure how to actually go about this. Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Morriswa: yes, there is a better way. First, you should not use the semicolons that way to make faux headers. Second, you don't need them; just run the paragraphs of RD material together. Third, merge the RJL tables together using {{jctgap}} to note the gaps. The length references can then go into the one header. Imzadi 1979 → 21:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979:, thank you for taking care of this. I would have done it myself, but thanks. I didn't realize that the faux headers were improper. Second, I'm not that familiar with the {{jctgap}} templates, so I wasn't sure exactly how to do all this. I really appreciate your help and teaching. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 675

Hi there,

I have a question about the intro text for Interstate 675 (Michigan). You used a non breaking space for "US Highway 23", but not for "Interstate 675". Is there a rule for that, or is it just a little inconsistency? TheWombatGuru (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheWombatGuru: it's a minor inconsistency, but since the latter is at the start of a line, it should never cause an issue of a line breaking after the very first word pushing the number to a second line. Anything after that though, and the varying widths of displays, from phones and tablets to various computer displays, could put a line break anywhere in the text. Imzadi 1979 → 21:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

List of state highways in Nebraska

Thanks for your help with this, that was one of the next things on my to-do list but I wasn't really looking forward to it lol. Appreciate the help! Strato|sphere 06:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, Stratosphere, and we need to give credit to Fredddie for the assist on figuring out graphics/years and passing that info to me on IRC while I was editing. In short, it was easy to do a find all/change all to convert the links into empty templates (and then mind-numbing to insert all of the line breaks... but I see that I missed adding the blank |terminus_a= and |terminus_b= in there. Now someone can go through and start filling in the blanks. :-) Imzadi 1979 → 06:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How do I update assessment tables or see when they were last updated?

How do I update a table like the one at WP:HWY/A? Or if that's not possible, how do I see when it was last updated?

TheWombatGuru (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That one updates automatically. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Highways articles by quality statistics –Fredddie™ 18:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@TheWombatGuru: the table on there is actually User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Highways. We transclude the table from that page to WP:HWY/A, but if you need to look at the history of the table, that's where you'd go. It looks like it was just updated two days ago and has otherwise been updated nearly daily otherwise. Imzadi 1979 → 18:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but the wikiwork does not seem to get updated, why is that? May I manually correct it on this page and on User:WP_1.0_bot/WikiWork/om? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=759485659&oldid=669612923&title=User%3AWP_1.0_bot%2FWikiWork%2Fww&type=revision) TheWombatGuru (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@TheWombatGuru: I don't know on that, and you'd have to talk to the bot operator. If you make any manual changes, the bot will normally overwrite them when it updates next. For that reason, it's usually best to talk to the bot operator(s) to get issues resolved. Imzadi 1979 → 18:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Imzadi1979/Archive_7&oldid=1096947249"