User talk:Imzadi1979/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Scenic byways

I'm a little confused by several changes:

1. The article name for New Mexico Scenic Byways. 1) It seems quite clear from the searching that I've done + the name as I found it on the Federal Highway Administration and NM DOT sites before I created the article that the current program name is New Mexico Scenic Byways.

2. Regarding use of WP:Plural, it seems to me that this is not a dog/dogs situation, but one where the name is actually the plural version. There is not one New Mexico Scenic Byway. So, using Byway is wrong - that's not it's name.

3. Scenic byways template. It's been confusing to me why the scenic byways template could not be on the individual scenic byway article pages -- but I tried to go with the flow to find a way that readers could get to the lists. It seems that creating the article made the most sense - and I'm confused why that has been removed from the See also list. Is it really going to hurt to have it in there? --CaroleHenson (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll start with the third question first. If the navbox itself does not link to the article, it's pointless to add it to the article. If you picture a hierarchy at work, there's the new Scenic byways in the United States, and under are all of the articles on various types/systems of byways. The last level down are the individual roads. Well, that navbox is linking only the top level and the middle level. It does not link all of the scenic byways in the United States, so a reader can't get from an individual byway article to one of its siblings through the navbox. Using it on an individual byway's article then is just a waste of screen space.

As for the plural, the article is about the type of road and secondarily lists the roads that meet that type. The other articles are at the singular title: National Scenic Byway, National Forest Scenic Byway, Michigan Heritage Route, Rustic Road (Wisconsin), etc. With as many entries as there are on the NSB and NSFB lists, a case can be made to split out the tables into List of National Scenic Byways and List of National Forest Scenic Byways as long as there is enough prose to leave behind, and that would emulate Interstate Highway System and List of Interstate Highways.

Your first question is best left on the talk page to avoid splintering the discussion already started there. Imzadi 1979 → 05:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I-94

I added the former exits with a source. If you want to get more accurate mileage on them, please do. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: just remember that when adding former interchanges, the notes must explain the "former-ness" of the situation. Also if the color key didn't have the gray color, it needs to be added. The article will not comply with MOS:RJL if either of these things are missing. Imzadi 1979 → 03:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, we have to have a citation to the map before the change and the map after the change. Imzadi 1979 → 03:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, did I add descriptions of the old exits properly? Also, I'm working on getting Michigan maps from the specific eras to cite each change. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, some of them you just described the old exits without ever saying it was a former exit. You cannot rely on just the color; the notes must explicitly say it's a former exit somehow.

I'm going through my maps right now to correct the citations as necessary, indicating the appropriate years the exits were removed. Imzadi 1979 → 04:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: specifically, you need to remember to do things like this edit. The proper type is "closed", not "former". The latter works in {{jctint}} (and the state-specific templates like {{MIint}}), but it won't show the popup tooltip. The "former" type is for {{routelist row}}, which uses the same Lua module to pull up the colors. Anyway, you also didn't add the colors to the color key at the bottom of the table, something that will cause the article to fail MOS:RJL compliance. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please do these simple things correctly. Imzadi 1979 → 01:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

A related note: Is there a consensus for what to do if the freeway is literally rerouted and the old routing obliterated? I haven't seen MDOT maps from that era in a while, so I don't know if they made it clear that the freeway was shifted northward in the 70s, and the old routing is now more or less the southern service drive in that area. Similarly, I-75 was shifted northward when the current Zilwaukee Bridge was built, obliterating an incomplete exit with M-13 and another that served Westervelt Road northbound and Adams Street southbound. (See here.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

M-1 Rail

I was just reading some changes made to the M-1 Rail page, and had some thoughts. Barring very major events like the scheduled completeion of a project, you rarely want to write too far into the future. For instance, the July 3 documentation of the bridge reconstructions over the freeways is something that you'll have to come back and correct, and it's really not that major of an event in the grand scheme of the project. We do not want the page to become a weekly or even monthly documentation of the progress of the project. Major events like ground-breaking major changes in the scope of the project, and things like securing major funding are fairly relevant on a case-by-case basis, but I'm not sure we need to be doing future tense about freeways bridge reconstructions. Just my two cents. You thoughts? --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: the article will be incomplete and unstable until the project is completed. It will constantly be up for revisions, and once the line opens, we can re-evaluate the content and weed out more trivial details. However, random people will add these minor details thinking that they are being helpful, so either we leave them for now and drop them later, or you'll be removing them on a weekly or monthly basis. At least with highway articles, we use |class=future and don't even begin to assess an article's content and organization as a project until the roadway is open to traffic. Imzadi 1979 → 19:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

US-24 Ohio

I am trying to make an article on U.S. Route 24 in Ohio since I feel it needs one. I've gotten a start on it at User:TenPoundHammer/US 24 Ohio and I would appreciate some help on the route's history, as well as the exact mileage of each junction. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Apologies. That was an inadvertent deletion, as I was trying to (too quickly before work) do an ⌥ Option+drag copy, which obviously didn’t work correctly. Useddenim (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Useddenim: apology accepted. Imzadi 1979 → 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Graphic Converter

When I open the .sid files, it tells me I need a plugin, then links me to a page that doesn't help at all. Any idea what plugin I'm missing to open them? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: MrSID V1.2 plug-in for GraphicConverter X | UB should do the trick. Imzadi 1979 → 20:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Works just fine. Also, can you figure out why I'm getting a stray set of brackets at the top of U.S. Route 23 in Ohio#Major_intersections? I can't for the life of me see where they can be coming from. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry.

Hi Imzadi1979 I am sorry for putting the r Shield request in the wrong place. ACase0000 (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs FAC

Hey, I was wondering if you were able to provide some feedback at the Sleeping Dogs FAC? It would be hugely appreciated. Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The nom is a little stuck because of an image, so new comments are welcome. URDNEXT (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why

Why did you delete my message? URDNEXT (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

To keep things transparent, I never do a review when solicited on my talk page or via e-mail. If I do a review at FAC, ACR, or GAN, it's because I found the nomination on my own, and because I have some level of interest or knowledge in the article or its subject area already. Imzadi 1979 → 20:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok then. Do you know anyone who would be interested in doing it then? URDNEXT (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't. Imzadi 1979 → 21:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I-96 BUS

Why did you remove North Street/Larch Street? This is a grade separation/interchange, no less of one than US-24/Orchard Lake or M-25/JFK Drive, and according to MOS:RJL, all grade-separated exits should be included. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't believe it needs to be present, and that goes for the JFK Drive example as well. If you're going to insist, then the addition needs to be cleaned up and clarified, and it needs a milepost.

However, TenPountHammer, my bigger problem is that you're spending an inordinate amount of time focusing on very minor details in junction or exit lists, taking dozens of edits to perform them on individual articles, even spreading these rounds of separate edits over several days or weeks, many of which to Featured Articles that then need to have your editing cleaned up to match the rest of the article.

• You've been told that many of these "Connects via X" type notes are not worth including. When you add too many minor notes, the entire table gets bloated and overloaded.
• You've been asked to make sure that any dates you add match the formatting of the rest of an article, yet you've basically said "the script I'm using has a default, and I can't be bothered to then manually change the date." That's not acceptable, and it means I have to run around behind your editing to clean up the mess you're making.
• You don't follow other formatting with citations. For example, the articles consistently use {{cite press release}} to note that a source is, in fact, a press release. The articles consistently use {{cite news}} for news sources, even ones online. Again, this constant stream of editing to articles assessed at a higher level of quality means I feel I have to double check your work to keep the articles consistently formatted.
• You were given instructions on how to determine intermediate mileposts, and yet you've basically said "I don't like math". Ok, fine, but a gentle notice that you've created missing mileposts would be appreciated. Otherwise, I have to go behind your edits to see if there are any missing.
• You're using sources (M-231 construction pamphlet) that can't back the information you're adding. That pamphlet was written before the project was started to tell the public what to expect. It was not written after the project to say what was actually done and when. You cannot use a source like that to say that an interchange project was completed in late 2013, period.
• In the past, you've also used low-quality, somewhat dubious sources to cite something when a few more minutes of digging on Google using their news search (http://news.google.com) found a higher-quality source.

Given all of that, and the fact that you seem to just be bouncing around from article to article, let me propose something. Why don't you start at M-1 and work your way in order to I-696. Focus your attentions on one article at a time. Once you've added everything you feel is missing, move on to the next one. If you skip a number, I will assume that you're not going to be editing it. Then I can come behind you once and clean up formatting issues just once. FAs need to be consistently formatted; it's one of the things that is checked at FAC. They need to properly use "high-quality reliable sources", not just any random thing you can find on Google to slap into the article. I think you'd agree that the last thing either of us wants is an article nominated for the review of its FA status over things that should never have been broken in the first place. Imzadi 1979 → 17:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've stopped including the "Connects via X"; I forgot about the date thing; I didn't realize {{Cite press release}} existed; and I go about at random because most of the articles are FA or GA anyway so there isn't much for me to do save for a tweak here and there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What about my suggestion to be a bit more systematic, focus on a single article at a time and them move on? Making dozens of minor tweaks to several articles over the course of a couple of weeks to means that those of us who are interested in maintaining the FAs at a high level of quality as an act of stewardship have to constantly "patrol" several articles at once. This takes time away from my other editing.

You've complained about the state of Interstate 94 in Michigan on and off for the last year. I don't like the state of that article either. However, when I'm mopping behind you on Interstate 75 in Michigan, Interstate 96, Interstate 196, U.S. Route 31 in Michigan, etc to keep those FAs consistent then I have little to no time to devote to I-94. It should be a GA by now, and I want to make it a FA in time, but if I don't have the time to work on it, it will languish for now.

Again, I'm asking you, TenPoundHammer, to work with me here, and the best way to do that is to focus on a single article at a time. Then I can polish your tweaks just once after you're done instead of running back and forth. Imzadi 1979 → 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's focus on I-94 only for now. It has all the former exits noted that I wanted, although 1.) should the Prospect Street former exit be clearer that it DID have full access?, and 2.) Some maps show that part of the Carpenter Road exit existed until the 1970s, but I can't tell for sure. Do you have any old maps that would verify? Also, what other improvements does the I-94 article need? I don't really have any old road maps handy that would help. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, about a year ago, I was working on I-69 and I-94 before my college semester started using the newspaper archives to which I had gained access through Ferris State. I was also using other newspaper archives. The idea was that I was fleshing out, and citing, the history of the highways from inception to initial completion, using as many news sources to cite events as possible. I had I-69 already nominated at GAN, and I was working on finishing I-94. However, another editor kept editing the I-94 while it was {{under construction}}. He was messing around with notes and entries on the exit list related to the business route signage and the American flag signage in Port Huron. He was also messing around with the history section, while I was actively revising and rewriting that section. Since he seemed as though it was his intention to keep edit-conflicting me at every step of my work, I abandoned the I-94 article in its current incomplete state. This other editor has been inactive, at least on highway articles, so I'm willing to get back to work on the I-94 article sometime next week. (I will be out of town most of the rest of this week.)

As for old maps, I have an archive of scanned official MSHD/MDOT maps from the Library of Michigan that date back to the 1920s (with some gaps), as well as a personal collection of paper maps that includes most of the editions printed by the state from the mid-1960s through the early 1980s and from the late 1990s through the present. This is in addition to other official paper maps that I have from other time periods since 1950. However, whenever we can, we should be using news articles and other sources instead of maps to cite historical information. Maps are the fallback, not the default. Imzadi 1979 → 01:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I-94 at I-69

Looks like a ramp from EB 94 to WB 69 to me (ETA: This is the EB 94-WB 69 ramp]). How are you getting incomplete access out of this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Toggle off the satellite view, and that ramp is missing. Imzadi 1979 → 01:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That looks like a glitch, because it's clearly functional on Street View from only a year ago. Unless you can find something else that proves it was removed less than a year ago? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Turns out the ramp is only temporarily closed during reconstruction, as seen here: " The eastbound I-94 ramp to westbound I-69 will be closed until fall 2014." Also if you look at the map of the rebuilt exit in the article, it shows that ramp intact. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Junctions

So when do I include, and when do I omit, the street name? (E.g., US-23 being Lake Street at M-55's eastern terminus and US-31 being Parkdale Avenue at its western terminus, both of which were omitted.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

When MDOT puts it on the junction signage is the usual answer. BTW, what happened to sticking to one article at a time? I've been fixing about a half dozen articles today based on your editing. Imzadi 1979 → 03:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting for you to respond to my suggestions at Talk:Interstate_94_in_Michigan#Improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

And I also told you that I was going to be out of town for a few days. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, must've missed that. Anyway, sorry for my impatience. Let's work together on the I-94 article when you're ready, then. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I-75

MOS:RJL says "If two interchanges with different roads have the same number with different lettered suffixes, they generally should not be combined." By that rule, shouldn't Rosa Parks and M-10 be listed as separate exits? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I was just wondering what the reasoning is behind the removal of the North-South Arterial Highway article. Given the fact that it is an expressway with junctions that would be repeated on multiple articles and is also undergoing a major reconstruction, shouldn't it warrant an article for itself? In addition, I was still actively editing the article so it was going to be improved rapidly. --Dekema2 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

All of the content should appear in the existing articles. Any readers interested in the topic can read those existing articles. We don't need five articles covering one topic when four already do. Imzadi 1979 → 01:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay that seems to make a little bit of sense. I don't know if it will be aesthetically pleasing to have junction tables under each subheading in each article though, but it'll straighten itself out somehow. --Dekema2 (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification

This is to inform you that Capitol Loop, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 13 October 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles on US and Canadian vehicle registration plates

"Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead:

The Babe Ruth Award is given annually to the Major League Baseball (MLB) player with the best performance in the postseason. (Babe Ruth Award)

Many, but not all, articles repeat the article title in bold face in the first line of the article. Linking the article to itself produces boldface text; this practice is discouraged as page moves will result in a useless circular link through a redirect. Linking part of the bolded text is also discouraged because it changes the visual effect of bolding; some readers will miss the visual cue which is the purpose of using bold face in the first place."

OK, fair enough.

But - without meaning to sound snotty here - there are definitely no rules that say that the descriptions of the plates in the tables should have the state/province/territory names, slogans and years in quotation marks; that the dates of issue should be in the format "(year X)–(year Y)" with no wrapping allowed; and that multiple notes should not be separated using ˂br˃ tags, bullet points or whatever.

That said, not everyone can or ever will entirely agree on how the things that go in these tables should be formatted. Bluebird207 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bluebird207: a few comments:

• Actually, regarding the first sentence of the lead, if the topic of the article doesn't appear in the first line, then nothing should appear in bold, and we should not resort to awkward constructions to force it to appear. Since neither "vehicle registration plates of Michigan" nor "license plates of Michigan" appears in that sentence, then nothing needs to be placed in boldface print at all. See the "Beatles in the United States" in the same MOS section for that rule.
• Items directly quoted off the plates should appear in quotation marks. This is no different than if you directly quoted material out of a book.
• Year ranges are typically written with dashes except when written out in prose in the form of "from X until U". When a year range has two years from the same century, then the first two numbers of the year are the same, they can be omitted.
• As for nowrapping, the column goes quite narrow on my display if we don't force it a touch wider by disallowing one example not to wrap. It's not a good idea to have it wrap at the dash in "1976-78".
• The extra lines in the notes makes table cells unnecessarily large. This is more of an anesthetic concern, but we should be sensitive to readers with smaller displays.

Imzadi 1979 → 00:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Items directly quoted off the plates should appear in quotation marks. This is no different than if you directly quoted material out of a book."

...Now that I actually find hard to agree with.

It's definitely wrong to quote material from a book, newspaper or website without putting that material in quotation marks - that is something everyone can agree on.

But with a vehicle registration plate, I hardly see why not putting quotation marks around state/province/territory names, slogans and other similar elements is a crime.

And in any case, can you really compare a book, newspaper or website to a rectangular piece of metal (or, in the case of the Northwest Territories, a polar bear-shaped one) that every motorist has to display on their vehicle by law?

• "Year ranges are typically written with dashes except when written out in prose in the form of "from X until U"."

"As for nowrapping, the column goes quite narrow on my display if we don't force it a touch wider by disallowing one example not to wrap. It's not a good idea to have it wrap at the dash in "1976-78"."

Year ranges not written out in prose (like in the tables) aren't always done so with dashes, though.

I don't see much wrong with using the word "to" instead of a dash. And would that not make the column wider, regardless of whether or not wrapping was allowed?

• "The extra lines in the notes makes table cells unnecessarily large. This is more of an anesthetic concern, but we should be sensitive to readers with smaller displays."

I still think multiple notes as regards a single base should be separated in some way, rather than just be lumped together into one paragraph. Bluebird207 (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bluebird207: at this point, I really don't care what you do. Having worked and consulted with our MOS as well as guidance from the AP, APA, and MLA style guides and the Chicago Manual of Style, I feel that the changes I made were done to improve the specific article. Apparently you disagree.

Direct quotations are still direct quotations, whether it is from a printed piece of paper or an embossed piece of metal.

Our MOS specifically says we can use abbreviations to conserve space in tables. Such dashed ranges are common in running prose as well. However, in running prose, various style manuals and our MOS say you can't replace the "to" with an en dash when there is another preposition in front of the years, as in the "from X to Y" example. That prohibition doesn't apply, so we're free to use the dash, which I've found to be common in tables all over Wikipedia.

Using "XXXX to YYYY" will not expand the width of the column because the text will wrap with "XXXX to" on one line and "YYYY" on the second, or it will run to three lines with "XXXX" on the first, "to" on the second" and "YYYY" on the third. Column width is determined by the reader's browser dynamically based on the content in the columns. Forcing one example not to line wrap gives the browser a minimum width as a baseline for that column.

As for the multiple notes, I disagree, and this were in running prose instead of in a table, we'd be hollered at for multiple single-sentence paragraphs, or over-usage of bulleted lists. The fact that this is a table doesn't remove the concepts of good writing.

Again, I don't care if other lists articles are using bad practices. Consistency is a good thing, except when used as an excuse to override attempts to improve one article of a set. You should be using this energy to improve the other mediocre examples to match, not tearing apart improvements and driving away interested editors. If that was your desire, to push people away and enforce mediocrity, you've achieved your goal. I'm removing the article from my watch list and asking you to leave my talk page in peace. Imzadi 1979 → 23:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey. Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. Surely there is no need for that kind of response.

All I am doing is stating my opinions. Surely I am entitled to these opinions, and surely I am entitled to express them.

I can see, however, that you disagree with them. And you're perfectly entitled to do that.

While I don't find it very easy to agree with your opinions either (aside from the one about the rule regarding the use of bold text in the lead section), that doesn't actually mean I'm swatting them away like flies. If that was the impression I was giving, then it was unintended, and I apologize for it.

I have been a Wikipedian since 2009, and in that time I've had several arguments with other Wikipedians. But not once have I actually intended to start an argument. All I've done is state an opinion, and it has been picked up wrong.

And at no point has my desire been to drive away other Wikipedians (not counting those editors who choose not to create a proper account and hence just use their IP addresses), and enforce or encourage mediocrity. Only the most selfish and misguided people have such a desire, and more often than not they get themselves blocked as a result.

I admit that I myself can come across as being a bit selfish and a bit misguided at times. But troublemaking is not my specialty - and nor will it ever be. Bluebird207 (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

An olive branch of sorts

OK, this will be the very last time I post on this talk page, and then I will leave you alone regardless of how you respond.

When you said, "You should be using this energy to improve the other mediocre examples to match, not tearing apart improvements and driving away interested editors; if that was your desire, to push people away and enforce mediocrity, you've achieved your goal", I honestly thought you were talking about Wikipedia in general - I did not think that you were only talking about the Vehicle registration plates of Michigan article (which I've chosen not to link to here).

So consider that a simple misunderstanding. I've already admitted that I can be a bit selfish and a bit misguided at times - and now I will admit that I'm capable of misunderstanding things now and again, too.

I have not, do not and never will have any intentions of driving fellow editors away from Wikipedia - and nor have I had, do I have and will I ever have any intentions of driving them away from individual articles, like the Vehicle registration plates of Michigan one.

You might find that I have not reverted your edits to this article. Well, all right, I partially reverted one - but that was merely because I didn't think the rules regarding the use of bold text in the lead section were that strict. (That was an example of me being a bit misguided, BTW.)

But I have not reverted any of the edits you made to the tables. I may not entirely agree with them, but I don't completely disagree with them either - and hence I've allowed them to stand. And I promise you, I will continue to allow them to stand.

And if you do edit the article again in the future, I promise you I'll let those edits stand too. Do not feel that you don't want to edit the article any more just because the two of us had a disagreement.

I myself will continue to edit the article - but only to update it (that is, when several new serials have been issued) and to put in additional information (like more detailed descriptions of some of the bases) as and when I see fit, and nothing else.

I will sign off by apologizing, one last time, for everything that has taken place over the last two days or so - for the disagreement, for the misunderstanding, for the report (which I'll admit now was an irrational decision - another example of me being a bit misguided), and above all for coming across as being a bit of an asshole. (Well, I do like to think that I am my harshest critic.) Bluebird207 (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Map updates

This is in response to your query on IRC, which I was away from at the time. The reason for the lack of updates is not because I have forgotten or failed to keep up with them, but rather because the most recent QGIS contained several bugs that made generating the map impossible. Whereas on Windows it is trivial to "downgrade" by uninstalling and reinstalling an older version, this is more difficult on Linux because it uses a software-installation tool somewhat like the app store found on mobile devices. Downgrading is made even more difficult because applications depend on linked libraries which other programs also rely on, so incompatible versions of these libraries can become an issue. I will check next week to see if the bugs have been corrected in a newer update, but it is possible that I will still run into crashes while generating the map. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's still not possible, I may be able to do the FA-only one for a while if you send me the files. --Rschen7754 18:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I-75 revert

I saw you reverted my edits to the infobox because you thought the 10 junction limit included the termini. I always thought it was 10 major junctions plus the termini that are allowed in the infobox. The US Roads article standards do not mention this detail. Perhaps they should be updated? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@PointsofNoReturn: just because we may allow something does not mean we require it. Depending on your point of view, the limitation may be 10+termini or 10 total. If the limit is 10+termini, that does not mean we should have 10+termini whenever possible. In fact, on articles with short leads, we should do more to keep the infobox length shorter. Once the lead is lengthened, it may be possible to add details back into the infobox. It is a balancing act either way, weighing which major cities and which major highways should be added. Sometimes it is easy: just stick to Interstates or Interstates that end in 0 or 5. Other times it is hard. Imzadi 1979 → 23:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. I still think the Wikiproject should clarify the junction rule as I have been left in the dark. In this one case, you are right that the lead is too short. Of course, this means that the infobox in Interstate 75 has 9 junctions now (not including termini). PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a hard limit. Rather, it is an arbitrary guideline designed to prohibit having every junction in the infobox (as is done in German autobahn articles). The idea is to keep the infobox from overwhelming the text, but I'm trying to use 10 = 10 with termini as a good rule. It's still a balancing act, and sometimes I won't even go over 5 junctions because there is no need, even when we could list every "major intersection". Imzadi 1979 → 00:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

True. It's probably better to have a flexible rule anyway. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Usually fewer is better if possible. Technically it's supposed to be 8-10 junctions. 10 was set as the "hard" limit back in 2006 when everyone was adding everything to the infobox, to try and get the situation under control, as the "under no circumstances should it go over!"

But realistically, nowadays most of the interstate infoboxes have been warred over enough so that it's really more productive to do work on the actual article instead. --Rschen7754 03:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Per your recommendations

Imzadi1979, thank you for your thoughtful recommendations at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

Per your helpful suggestion, I've gone ahead and modified the blurb text to only have one (1) instance of the word diff. Further, in subsequent days the link may simply be to the book's subtitle, Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, as it has been referred to secondary sources, for example The Washington Post.

Hopefully this is now satisfactory for you to reevaluate your position at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

— Cirt (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Will you have another look?

Will you have another look at the TFAR discussion. I'm trying to compromise between multiple different editors's comments and suggestions here, please understand that. I've trimmed the amount of usage of that word in the blurb as much as possible.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, and my comments stand as originally written. Imzadi 1979 → 18:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I changed a little bit, but okay. Still hard to be upset at you when I love your username. :P — Cirt (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I just want you to know, this time round, the reason I chose a specific date, was due to your "Support" comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film). You said: "Support for a specific date only—that will negate the criticisms of running this article to appeal to a more prurient nature. The article, and its subject, is worthy of highlighting. All FAs should someday be TFA, but given the controversial nature of this nomination, I can only support it for a specific date that will tie into the theme of the film. Imzadi 1979 → 01:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)" So it was directly in response to my attempt to incorporate your helpful suggestion from the last time you had voiced "Support", that I chose a specific date for this one. I do hope you'll reconsider, — Cirt (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yongin–Seoul Expressway

Hi, if you think this is not a stub (via talk page assessment), please remove stub tag on talk page. Thanks! — revi_msg 01:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@-revi:, stub tagging and Stub-Class assessment are separate, but related concepts. Stub tags usually refer to the overall length of the article's content. The Highways Project is following the assessment scheme used by WP:USRD/A, which looks more at the type of content than the number of words written. This means something could be stub-length, but not Stub-Class.

The assessment scheme relies on the presence of the "Big Three" article sections on a highway article: a route description, a history section, and some type of junction list. The article has a history section, although that should ideally be rewritten in prose instead of a bulleted-list timeline. It also has a junction list, although that should be reformatted to comply with MOS:RJL. It doesn't really have a section that serves as a description of the route, so it only has two of the Big Three, which is Start-Class. If it had a route description, it could be upgraded to C-Class. If the prose were cited and closer to what the MOS says for formatting, then it could be B-Class. Imzadi 1979 → 01:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, and I'll try to reformat them in few days. — revi_msg 01:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my edit for the Toledo War page

I have cited it and given a link for more information--ChristianOlson0214 (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@ChristianOlson0214:, please keep the discussion on Talk:Toledo War. I've already answered your question there. Imzadi 1979 → 22:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion?

I guess I have a case of rude editing here. What is your opinion? Background: I got some behind editing on my contribs after posting some critisism of a oranisation based in Germany and Nevada. Groups of this oranisation supports this and that. As the only reason "UGH" of the removal of my contrib is strongly focussed on my name by IP users, makes it more suspect, even one of the IPs is form Vegas. --Hans Haase (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hans Haase: I think you're creating more of an issue to assume a connection that doesn't exist. WP:UGH is a shortcut to a section of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions entitled, "I don't like it". I don't think that applies to the situation that well, but it is a criticism of your editing based on not liking the restoration of the status quo ante. In short, you're in a case of WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. The edit was bold, it's been reverted, and now you're going to have to engage in a discussion on the talk page to come to a consensus on what to do.

A side note, but I would not restore those wiring diagrams. They're only tangentially related, so they aren't ideal candidates for the lead image, and their large size created formatting issues. However, you'll have to convince other editors to agree with your point of view. While you're doing that, until you have better evidence of bad-faith editing other than the fact that IP addresses geolocate to the same area where an organization is based, you will need to assume good faith on the part of the other editors. Just because an editor comes from Las Vegas, Nevada, a city of a half million people in the middle of a metro area approaching 2 million, does not automatically mean that editor harbors a personal bias against your viewpoint of some organization. Imzadi 1979 → 21:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I already made a statement there. The pictures are imagemaps, so it is possible to understand in for children as well. Do you see another way to give this information without WP:OR or interpretation we should give to the reader, only? --Hans Haase (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please explain removal of Multi State Route 92

Please explain why the new article Multi State Route 92 was removed and replaced with the list of routes numbered 92. What could be done to improve that article to make it acceptable? I'm asking here, because after its removal, it does not have a talk page on which to discuss it.RogerD (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@U52983:, there is a talk page, Talk: Multi State Highway 92, and I laid out my reasons there already. Imzadi 1979 → 07:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for input

Good late night early morning. I made some improvements to the Transportation in South Florida article, including a thorough review of your written suggestions from the GAN, and have submitted it at FAC. As a constructive critic, your comments on the matter are welcomed. B137 (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I would also invite you to leave a comment here: Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of tallest buildings in Miami/archive1 as this FLRC has stagnated, despite my several points about it being far from featured material standards. I know it may be out of your area of interest content-wise, but as a user with a long history of dealing with featured content, GANs, etc, I find this notification appropriate. B137 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

ChristianOlson0214

I can't help feeling that this editor means well but for whatever reason can't figure out how to get to the article talk page. Thanks for your help, maybe we can still get him on board. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You recently partially reverted a change of mine on Roads and freeways in metropolitan Detroit

This was regarding the freeways/expressways. When push comes to shove I would be hard pressed to tell you the difference between the two. What I am interested in is the "toll-free" part. Explained (with dedicated citation) further down in the lead is that Michigan actually has no tolls on any roadways. Given the reality of the toll situation (and the dedicated citation later on) would you mind if we just left any mention of tolls in that later sentence? Juno (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference. A freeway has full control of access. This means that adjacent property owners cannot built a driveway to access the roadway. Freeways also have full grade separation, which means cross roads pass over or under the freeway's lanes, like they do at interchanges. They are designed to have free-flowing traffic. Expressways may have some control of access, and there is no requirement to have grade separation. Freeways and expressways may or may not be tolled without affecting that status. Imzadi 1979 → 23:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

commons:User:Highway Route Marker Bot

I just put in a note on the Common's de-flag request requesting to keep the bot.

If you are having issues with the script I would be interested to know what they are.

There have been some enhancements that I wanted to do with the bot, so I am planning to do a test run this weekend. I sent a message to Freddie to see if his requests were still applicable, or if you have other suggestions I can try those too. After I finish the run, I will update the code on the bots page, as well as provide some example files. --Svgalbertian (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Good to know! :-) We have a request coming for Kentucky where there are hundreds of missing files that will be needed eventually. That state literally has a few thousand state routes, and while they may not all get articles, their markers are still going to be used in other articles that do exist. Imzadi 1979 → 23:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Cite California statute

OK, someone is interested!

I have a question concerning presentation, now that I have worked out what is going on. It's to do with inclusion of |res= or |HR=. I assume they are mutually exclusive, but there is no documentation anywhere I can see. Any, if we take for example {{Cite California statute |1966|94|631|ex=1|res=true|section=4}} then that produces
California State Assembly. "Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 17—Relative to delaying relinquishment of a portion of Interstate 80 leading to the State Capitol". 1966 Session of the Legislature, 1st extraordinary session. Statutes of California (Resolution). State of California. Ch. 94 § 4 p. 631. or {{Cite California statute |year=1959|chapter=144|HR=true}} produces
California State Assembly. "Relating to the Seaside Freeway". 1959 Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California (House Resolution). State of California. Ch. 144.

The thing is, the fact there was a resolution about this statute isn't actually shown in the citation. My feeling is that it could be shown as the leading part of the |volume= in {{cite encyclopedia}} – here something like "Resolution of the 1966 Session of the Legislature ..." or "House Resolution of the 1959 Session of the Legislature". Do you have any opinions?

BTW do you actually know what is the difference between a resolution and a House Resolution?

--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 10:01, wikitime= 02:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Unbuttered Parsnip: I don't have many ideas here. I didn't develop the templates, did only some basic stuff over the years to get them to match up with the CS1 family of templates better. I approach things from the angle first. Personally, I don't think cite encyclopedia is the right base template to be using. The idea that something is a resolution versus an enacted statute would be a matter for a |type= parameter, which would then appear in parentheses, not the volume, which should be which book or subsection/department of the website contains the specific legislation.

I would switch this over to something like {{cite web|author=California State Assembly|year= year|title=title of the legislation|type=statute or resolution, etc|department=the session, including extraordinary ones|work=Statutes of California|publisher=State of California|at=chapter and page location|accessdate=accessdate}}.

That's about all I can offer at the moment. Imzadi 1979 → 03:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

i It didn't make any difference using {{cite encyclopedia}} or {{cite web}}
ii I used |format= because it seemed to put it in a more logical place in the output.
iii I'm unaware of other citation templates for reference
Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 21:40, wikitime= 13:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't understand why this should be any form of citation at all, with all the baggage that brings – hcards and microformats etc. I'd have thought that just emitting text in the citation style was enough, without the extra unnecessary processing.--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 14:27, wikitime= 06:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, quick comment. Not all citations have metadata. (They don't have hCards, and I'm fuzzy on whether on the metadata vs. microformats distinction and how it might apply.) The Citation Style 1 (CS1) family of templates has COinS metadata included in the output so that various types of software can be told which elements of the citation output are author names, which are titles, etc. By using a CS1 template as a base for this source-specific citation template, it should always match up in terms of the citation formatting style. If the others are outputting COinS metadata, why shouldn't this too? (The overhead isn't really worth worrying about, btw.) If you rewrote the template to not use a CS1 template as the base, then you'd have rewrite it anytime that CS1 formatting is modified to keep the output consistent. Imzadi 1979 → 06:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

List of U.S. Highways in Michigan

Hello,

You reverted my edit to List of U.S. Highways in Michigan, I assume it contained one or multiple errors. But did you really have to delete everything, helping is a bit hard if an edit that contains errors is fully reverted. TheWombatGuru (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Two considerations at at work. As it stands, there is no prose in that article, so when the prose is added and kept, the article will be DYK-eligible. If prose is adde prematurely, then DYK will require a 5x expansion of prose length to be eligible, which might not be possible. I also have a plan on adding that prose based on what we did with the Interstate list for Michigan, and I'd like to proceed with it when I can.

Second, but I assume you just totaled all of the current US Highways' lengths to derive the value you gave as the total length. That will double count all of the concurrent segments, like US 2/US 141, US 2/US 41, US 10/US 127, US 127/US 223, US 23/US 223, etc. Also, in the Interstate list, the business loops weren't included in the length, and if they were included in your figure, there are concurrencies to be factored like BUS US 10/BUS US 127 in Clare. Because of the concurrencies, the total really will need a bit of a localized touch to avoid this double counting of mileage. Imzadi 1979 → 21:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand why no text is better than a short prose in the lead? Also, I got the lengths from this site: http://www.michiganhighways.org/route_systems.html it states it includes business connections, I don't know about concurrencies. TheWombatGuru (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That's even worse! We cannot use that website as a source for articles. It is a self-published source, and it's never been judged to meet the exceptions in policy for use as a source. It's possible we could make a case, but I've found enough discrepancies between his writing and official MDOT sources that I won't sanction its use.

As for the prose thing, I appreciate your desire to help, but no one is being harmed by a list article that's missing prose. If anything, readers aren't being helped by the fact that I haven't gotten around to copying the rest of the business route lengths into that table. There are missing dates that need to be added. Once those details are filled in, that's when we start writing a history of the the US Highways in Michigan, a history that will be summarizing details from the tables. That's also when we can start crafting a general description of the highways, again based on the information in the tables and other sources. When an article is created, expanded or overhauled, the writer will have to (re-)write the lead after (re-)writing the body because the lead needs to serve as a summary. Imzadi 1979 → 22:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that wasn't allowed. And I now understand why there shouldn't be a lead yet. TheWombatGuru (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of U.S. Route 45 in Michigan to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR (specific and non-specific date slots) and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 10:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

M-5

Not sure what you mean by me oversimplifying here. It's just a half-Y interchange with Grand River. Or are you referring to the fact that it also incorporates an intersection with Freedom Drive and an at-grade turn into the Target plaza to the north? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The use of scope in tables

Why do you re-add the scope="col" and / or the scope="row" to tables? - I have been editing wiki, primarily on Wikia, for over 9 years and have never seen a case where you had to use those table parameters, if removed the table works and looks exactly as it did before they were removed. (<span=help title="Morph">M o r p h | <span=help title="See what Morph has Contributed to Wikipedia">^C | <span=help title="Morph's Discussion Page">_T) 19:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jrooksjr: I was just in the process of saving the following to your talk page when I saw you commented here, Since my comments answer your question, I'll just post here instead.

I used some wiki-magic to put a copy ("transclusion") of just the RMA table into the toll road list article. I think the table is necessary there because it lists all of the RMAs by name with their abbreviations and adds some context to the rest of the article. In adding the magic codes, I tagged them with some HTML comments so hopefully people don't erase them and screw things up.

I did notice in one of your edit summaries that you removed the scope attributes from the tables. Actually, they are necessary because they tell screen readers and other software which cells label the columns and which label the rows. MOS:DTT, the "data-table tutorial" section of the MOS does give us this guidance for accessibility reasons. It is probably one of the least-known sections of the MOS that applies wiki-wide. (The coding for {{routelist row}} and {{jctint}} to create the routelist/road junction list tables was written to comply with header scope requirements.) Also, if ! scope="row" isn't in there, the plainrowheaders class won't unbold and left-align the row headers. That class won't touch headers scoped as columns, so they still appear centered and bolded as normal. So, no, it didn't "look[] exactly as it did before they were removed"

Another quick thing that I wanted to bring to your attention, but MOS:HEAD says not to use Title Case for headings, and to minimize the repetition of the article title into headings. That's why I switched the one back to just "List", as "List of Texas Tollways", if used shouldn't capitalize "tollway", and as the basic subject of the article, the "Texas tollways" isn't needed. Imzadi 1979 → 20:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I know about "Transclusions" as well, but every time I have transcluded anything in the past, Fram, who likes to delete pages and just say they are copyrighted and not give an editor a change to edit and remove such information while still leaving the rest of the page intact, or others would remove it so I quit doing that. As to the scope= issue, those tags are still not needed unless you use the plainrowheaders and I am sure there are some other classes that I do not know about. Otherwise, using the ! tells the screen readers and other software which cells labels are headers (column or row) and the or | tells them that the data is a non-header cell.

BTW - it is no wonder no one can follow the Manual of Styles! The MOS rules to it, new editors or those that do not edit frequently can not find anything there -- (<span=help title="Morph">M o r p h | <span=help title="See what Morph has Contributed to Wikipedia">^C | <span=help title="Morph's Discussion Page">_T) 20:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't have an issue there. All that is being transcluded is the table, and the rest of the article is separate. Had it not expanded on the topic so much, I'd have thought that topic should have been merged back. Also, there's no apparent copyright issue, so that's not going to happen.

As for the scopes, yes, it is my understanding that we're supposed to use them. The ! will only tell the screen reader that the cell is a header, but the software won't know it is specifically a row header or a column header, just a generic header. It is my understanding that such specific attributes are recommended by the W3C, and it does not hurt to add them and leave them in place. As for the MOS, an editor can write and create content and learn the more specific rules as he or she goes. If editors stick to sentence case and emulate other articles, they'll be fine until they want to polish an article for GA or FA. Imzadi 1979 → 20:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I-75 question

Do you know if there was ever an exit from northbound I-75 to John R. Street in downtown Detroit? I ask this because I can't figure out why the I-375/M-3 exit is 51B and 51C if there's no 51A. I thought I could make out a ramp to John R. on an old aerial, and the 2003 Michigan map shows a ramp there, but do you know of anything more concrete? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me why you reverted the edit about the John R. exit? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Could you at least comment it out until a better source is found, since I feel it should be there? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can you stop half-assing edits to Featured Articles? A "?" is not a milepost. If you do not know the milepost to use, leave it blank. Additionally, former exits really require the year(s) when the interchange or ramps were removed. I cannot just comment it out because of the |cspan= and |lspan = elements further up. Also, please stop editing before I can reply. Go fix yourself a beverage and stop editing. I'm on my third edit conflict of the night, and your crappy editing technique is about to drive me into an early retirement, leaving you to finish improving the last of Michigan's highway articles. Imzadi 1979 → 04:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for constantly bothering you, but I'm just kind of OCD about making sure every exit is in place, past and present. What would be another viable source besides the MDOT maps? I just checked 1969, 1976, and 1987, and none of them show any ramps in that stretch of I-75, yet the 1976 Detroit inset I cited shows a ramp there, as do 1970s aerials. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to read User:Rschen7754/The value of a junction list. --Rschen7754 04:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Saw your post come up on my talk page as I was typing the response above. After the last revert, my plan was indeed to back off on the edit and let you come up with something better since you disagreed with what I was doing. That sounds like BRD to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRD. The one revert of mine saying we were going to the status quo ante should have been enough to trigger the discussion. You then should have waiting a short amount of time to allow me to reply on my talk page when you questioned it before trying to put it back in commented-out form. I have a lot more things to say to you, but my better judgement is telling me to bite my tongue. Imzadi 1979 → 04:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

My extreme impatience is getting the better of me again. It's a bad habit that I really need to learn how to change but seem constantly unable to, regardless of intentions. Sorry for getting you riled up again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

ETA: Would what I've done on the M-39 article be a better solution? Point out something that I think needs changing and ping you so you know to help me with it when you can? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Shileds for the Houston area Katy Freeway Managed Lanes

Just to let you know

• The official shield used, by TxDot, on the Houston area road signs is File:I-10 Toll.png
• The shield used by the Houston area television news stations is File:I-10 Toll (Katy Managed Lanes).png

-- (<span=help title="Morph">M o r p h | <span=help title="See what Morph has Contributed to Wikipedia">^C | <span=help title="Morph's Discussion Page">_T) 13:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jrooksjr: I have nominated the latter graphic for deletion from Commons as a copyright violation. It's not in the MUTCD. It might be the same shape as the Interstate Highway shield, but has too many other elements (reversal of the red–blue colors, addition of the stylized roadway, etc) to be included under that license. As for the former, we have a SVG version of that with the I-35 shield in the center, and I was planning on creating an I-10 version after some confirmation that's what is used. I'll also be making an I-820 version for North Tarrant Express use. (We prefer SVGs over PNGs because they're resolution independent, in other words they can be scaled to whatever size is needed in a given application without a loss of quality.) Imzadi 1979 → 20:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Toll Texas Interstate Highway 10.svg and File:Toll Texas Interstate Highway 820.svg now exist. Imzadi 1979 → 21:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly do not care about the nomination for deletion - for all I care delete it now - I was just pointing out that the I-10 Toll image did exist and was used by TxDot for the Katy Managed Lanes with the exception of the one that was used by the Television news station. -- (<span=help title="Morph">M o r p h | <span=help title="See what Morph has Contributed to Wikipedia">^C | <span=help title="Morph's Discussion Page">_T) 00:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You made the template add the EXPRESS shield above the I-10 Toll on the Katy Managed Lanes -- That EXPRESS shield does not exist on any TxDOT sign in the Houston area. -- (<span=help title="Morph">M o r p h | <span=help title="See what Morph has Contributed to Wikipedia">^C | <span=help title="Morph's Discussion Page">_T) 00:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, there's a bit of confusion then related to a request over at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields task force/Requests, but it's easy to fix. Imzadi 1979 → 01:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The EXPRESS plate may be used in other parts of the state but not in the Houston area is all that I can say for sure. -- (<span=help title="Morph">M o r p h | <span=help title="See what Morph has Contributed to Wikipedia">^C | <span=help title="Morph's Discussion Page">_T) 01:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jrooksjr: anyway, the plate's been removed. Hopefully we can figure out what further graphics need to be created, and/or updated to finish off the list. The Fort Bend County shields can't be used unless we can prove they're in the public domain. There are a few ways they could be PD, or someone could e-mail the agency and ask for permission to license them with a compatible license or a dedication into the public domain. If any of the other newer marker designs aren't listed in the Texas MUTCD though, they'll also have a copyright like the Fort Bend ones, which means those can't be included in the list. (We did modify the 183A and 290 markers to remove the specific logo that tripped the copyright because the rest of the design is from the TMUTCD, and the logo-less version is PD so it can be used in the list.)

I did create List of Park Roads in Texas last night. All of the lengths and dates have been aded from the TxDOT Highway Designation Files, so if someone wanted to pull the descriptions and then cross reference to a map to make sure the southern/western terminus is listed in the first column and the northern/eastern terminus is listed in the other, that would be great. The HDFs are supposedly written in south-to-north or west-to-east order since a few contain entries saying they were redone to conform to a consistent order, but I didn't want to assume they were all correct since I'm not from the state. Imzadi 1979 → 10:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Emails asking permission sent

I have no idea as to what to directly ask for but I sent the following email to the FBCTRA, HCTRA and the NTTA:

To whom it may concern,

My name is James E. Rooks, Jr. and I am a editor on Wikipedia and was working on their page that lists all of the Tollways in the state of Texas. I noticed that they did not have the shields for the < name of toll road authority > toll roads. When I asked why, I was informed that they are not in the M.U.T.C.D. nor are they in the Public Domain, so we can not use them without permission to use them.

I am inquiring to see what needs to be done to gain permission or what license is required to be able to use the proper shield markers on Wikipedia

Yours truly,

James E. Rooks, Jr.

so we will see what they reply back ( if they do ) -- (<span=help title="Morph">M o r p h | <span=help title="See what Morph has Contributed to Wikipedia">^C | <span=help title="Morph's Discussion Page">_T) 00:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

An other question

This version I contributed a typical circuit diagram to give a practical information. The digrams are based on GM vehicles, but show typical variations of VW also. An IP 24.n came along, removed my edits 3 times, began an never ending discussion, but had no real alternative to give this information. Interpreting is would be rated as theory finding. The only argument was WP:UGH. What do you think? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 23:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I told you before, assuming I understand what you're trying to say, that I have no opinion on that situation. Imzadi 1979 → 23:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What would you do if you were me and the diagrams were verified? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 23:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have already said it twice now: "I have no opinion on that situation". Imzadi 1979 → 23:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yount Road (Fairview Alpha, Louisiana)

Hi there. I noticed you nominated Yount Road (Fairview Alpha, Louisiana) for a speedy delete. I occasionally edit articles about Louisiana, and have encountered the creator of this article before. I suspect there is an issue of competence, but am not sure how to address it. I offered help when the user went by User talk:Dragonrap2. Every time I encounter this editor I need to do cleanup. Not sure how to help. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you edit warring me?

You reverted the contrib of the citation note of the inverted SPUI. A citation is not neccessary it map material already shows it. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 16:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hans Haase: no, and please see WP:BRD. You were Bold to just remove the citation needed note, you've been Reverted, and the next step is to Discuss it. That's not "edit warring" at all, and to insinuate that it is is not a good thing. That said, coordinates listed in the text are not citations, and the easier answer is to supply a map-based citation that will verify the data. Imzadi 1979 → 17:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The BOLD I felt was in the SPUI. Ok, see the the question Are you edit warring me? with a smile. I assumed you change has been an automatic or assisted edit, to remove the WP:SPS source. This only said, this interchange was indentified as an inverted SPUI. Based on other sources, this als can be done. The reference is not needed. The specified obecjet location shows what the article is about. Btw. there's an other interchange next. Is is required to differ what the inverted SPUI an not the freeway to freeway interchange. Identifiying it as an inverted SPUI may be refered, but not if other samples exist. -Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hans Haase: I didn't see any indication that you were joking. The written word lacks the subtleties of spoken conversation, and so I had to assume you were being serious. Even joking about edit warring is still a serious matter. Accounts get blocked on Wikipedia for edit warring, so it is not a joking matter.

As for the rest of your comments, I am having trouble understanding you. I assume that English is not your native language, and so we are having a bit of a language barrier. It is that, or your typing and writing skills could use some work.

Including coordinates within the written text is not the same as supplying a source. If an article is citing sources through the use of footnotes, then a footnote should be supplied to verify the written prose. Not everything can be verified through the use of a map, and even when it can, it is still a good idea to cite a specific map for information. Imzadi 1979 → 21:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my native is German. It is clear, map material has other qualities as a text reference. In case of typical buildings, they sould be identified like letters. The reference was used where the information was taken, only. So I suggest still to remove the citation. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 22:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"An inverted SPUI in Greensboro, North Carolina connects West Wendover Avenue to South Holden Road at WikiMiniAtlas36.064781°N 79.848098°W." is cited. Accordingly, "On Interstate 244 in Tulsa, Oklahoma are inverted SPUIs at Sheridan Road 36.163289°N 95.904535°W and Memorial Drive 36.16234°N 95.886873°W. On Interstate 290 in Chicago, Illinois, at South Harlem Avenue 41.873635°N 87.804505°W." needs a citation. Basically, I take exception to the level of precision for those coordinates without some source to back them up.

You do realize it would have been easier, and much less time consuming, to have supplied a reference than to accuse me of edit warring and then spending all of this time discussing it? On that note, I'm done discussing this as everything has been said. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I needed to find the reasons. I will write a nouvelled section of the north america use, cause the SPUI's origin and most usage is there. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 01:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

See my previous edit in interchange (road). I fixed samples from unexperienced users. This is what I was talking about the article SPUI. Result: We are experienced, already. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 12:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

was already references, by google earths historical images. I did not revert that. Thanks. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 16:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hans Haase: it was a poor addition for two reasons as I stated:

1. The sentence, as you revised it, was ungrammatical and read poorly in English: "There are a pair of interchanges on US 24 for Ecorse Road and I-94 (Detroit Industrial Freeway), the latter being of the single point urban interchange (SPUI) design in 2005." To native speakers, the "in 2005" is tacked on as an afterthought with no connection to the rest of the sentence. At a minimum, you'd have needed to add, with a comma, "which was converted in 2005".
2. The footnotes at the end of the sentence are to the Google Maps satellite view of US 24, and the other is the 2012 paper road map from the Michigan Department of Transportation. Neither of those maps can support a claim of "in 2005". If you had performed the longer addition I noted in point 1, it would need its own footnote(s) to establish the date.

In other words, if you had instead given readers:

"There are a pair of interchanges on US 24 for Ecorse Road and I-94 (Detroit Industrial Freeway), the latter being of the single point urban interchange (SPUI) design,^[6][8] which was converted in 2005.^[9]"

then it might have been a properly worded and properly cited addition. As it is, your edit was neither. And if you were to have made that change, I would still have reverted it because if you read lower down in the article in the History section, you'll find:

"The interchange with I-94 had only two bridges and left hand exits were used throughout.^[28] This interchange was reconfigured in 2005 to a SPUI design that was completed in December of that year.^[29]"

In short, your edit was "ungrammatical and unsupported by the existing citations" in that location, and the information is already contained lower in the history section where it belongs. Imzadi 1979 → 18:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Savile Row

I withdrew from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Savile Row/archive1 when Savile Row became unstable. The article has now been stable since August so I am considering nominating it again. You made some pertinent comments in the FAC; do you feel your concerns have been addressed, or should I be paying more attention to formatting before re-nominating? Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Exit questions

So noting a left exit is fine? And "Xbound exit and Ybound entrance" should have an "only" after it? Just wanting to make sure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Adding "only" makes more sense grammatically, that's why I add it. –Fredddie™ 05:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

US 35

I made a page for U.S. Route 35 in Ohio without realizing that the main page at U.S. Route 35 had a junction list already. However, the junction list on the main US-35 page is incomplete, and goes against the conventional west-to-east due to the configuration of the route. Is there a precedent for highways that change directions in a way that counters the traditional west-to-east, south-to-north format for junction lists? Or would I be better off getting rid of the junction list on U.S. Route 35 and splitting off the Indiana portion into its own article too? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: U.S. Route 35 should probably have state-detail subarticles created for West Virginia and Indiana. The appropriate parts of the table could be moved into the subarticles, and a bulleted-style list per MOS:RJL could be left in its place on the main article. As for the direction, that's a judgement call. Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Imzadi 1979 → 16:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get working on that once I'm back on my computer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

List_of_auxiliary_Interstate_Highways

Why did you revert my edits on List_of_auxiliary_Interstate_Highways regarding interstate highways in Florida? All information I changed or added was verifiably correct. I removed the part about the I-295 beltway around Jacksonville that said, "Since this isn't a full circle, proper termini should be listed." It is a full circle beltway as of 2011. This can be verified on its page: Interstate 295 (Florida). The termini I listed for I-795 in Jacksonville are also correct. The ones currently listed are both incorrect. And it is in fact under construction, not only proposed. Both the proper termini and construction status can be verified on the page Interstate 795 (Florida). I have added my changes again. There is no reason to go back and forth over this; the information that you reverted it to was incorrect and not verifiable. 24.127.240.127 (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@24.127.240.127: none of your changes comported with my understanding of the situation at the time, in part because SR 9B is already opened. Just let your changes stand without further modification after we've expanded I-795's notes to clarify that the highway itself is partially open. Case closed. Imzadi 1979 → 06:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Greenlawn

So you're okay with me using the old Sunoco map for the Greenlawn exit but not the former John R exit in downtown Detroit off I-75? Is this because I-75 is a featured article? What would be your suggestion for citing the John R exit, since the MDOT maps didn't usually show it? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Only for the moment, and I'll probably replace it with an MDOT map. The reason I prefer that we avoid petroleum company maps is that we don't have a consistent series of them to use as a source. We do know that MSDH/MDSH/MDSHT/MDOT printed maps annually or semi-annually, and that they made updates between each printing. We also know that a full set is available at the Library of Michigan or the MDOT Library. I have a large collection of maps in print as well as the rest in scanned format from the LoM. Imzadi 1979 → 05:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but of all the MDOT maps I've checked in my collection, none were detailed enough to show the John R exit downtown, and I checked several ranging from 1976 to 2002. So unless an alternate printing of the same map somehow showed that exit, we might have to use something else like a USGS topo or gas company map, or even an aerial photo. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A USGS topo would be preferable to an oil company map as the USGS publishes them in a known series with regular updates. Those are updated on a somewhat regular schedule with the various editions available for citation, although they weren't updated annually. Another option would be to check MDOT's ROW maps to see if there is any details there. Sometimes they make notes (like the Capital Loop's transfer date) or they would have property transfer dates for parcel purchased or sold by the state. Imzadi 1979 → 06:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Numbered highways in the United States

the captions overlap, making them unreadable. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

They don't for me. However, your changes did make the three-digit Interstate shield appear at the same width as the others when it is wider, and that gave it a shorter height than the others, which is not correct. Imzadi 1979 → 16:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"many"

Might I suggest that this sentence shouldn't use "many"? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends on your threshold for the word many. The three counties with a plurality of those of Finnish descent which also still have those speaking the language in home or church are probably not not "many areas", but it's not a dubious claim that the UP has areas with those who speak either language, which is why I reverted the tag out of the article. The rest is a matter of refining the wording, not removing or rebutting the claim. Imzadi 1979 → 22:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@The ed17: re-ping. Imzadi 1979 → 22:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm not saying that the sentence should be removed. As you say, Hancock is still covered in Finnish signs. Just the word "many," as there is no Finnish in the southern, central, or eastern UP. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

South Pole Traverse date format

I don't agree that South Pole Traverse should use British style dates. It is funded and built by U.S. government entities from one American base to another American base. U.S. is a signatory of the Antarctic Treaty, but I don't think that makes the project any less American from start to finish, your comment "international in nature" does not seem to be factual. — Brianhe (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Brianhe: to call the "DD Month YYYY" date format "British style" is a bit of a misnomer when it is also used by the military and most of the rest of the world that isn't the US. Antarctica is outside of the physical US, and so I think the non-American style of date would fit just a bit better even if it were a US-funded project. Imzadi 1979 → 03:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

My argument is that MOS:DATETIES and MOS:RETAIN both would discourage the reformatting to add mm yyyy. – Brianhe (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. I just thought that it would be more appropriate to flip it since it's off the American mainland and connecting research facilities used by international scientists (they aren't all American), supported by the US military. I won't fight you on it, but when I looked at the article today, it seemed odd that it was using the other date format when the Antarctic research is so very international in scope. Imzadi 1979 → 03:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's operated by the National Science Foundation. I could be wrong, but think military involvement is limited to airlift to the pole. I don't see how the continent it is on overrides MOS:DATETIES any more than it would if the article was Apollo moon landings. The ties in terms of conception, funding, construction/maintenance and purpose are pretty clear. — Brianhe (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Nicolet

It's signed as To I-75 South, Petoskey. Why should that not be included? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Nicolet Street does not run to Petoskey. Neither does I-75. Use a little editorial judgement instead of blindly copying the signs for once, assuming that's what the signs actually say.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of seeing you obsessing over the RJLs in articles when they're perfectly fine as is in most cases. The exit/junction list is probably the least important part of the content of the article, yet it's all you seem to edit. I'd rather spend time getting the last of I-94's history researched and cited. I'd like to figure out how to deal with the US 12 article in terms of the history because the US 112 designation was totally retired in the 1960s. I'd rather spend more time making sure that we use either "c." or "c." to follow the MOS's guidance on abbreviating the word "circa" with dates, and making sure that the external links are formatting consistently with the name of the website or publisher unlinked, or that map citations all have scales, cartography and section information added as needed.

At some point, if I can muster up the energy to finishing off these last few articles that need work to be nominated at WP:GAN, and then if I make sure the lists have their details summarized and cited so they can be taken to WP:FLC, we'll need to be looking at polishing the formatting in all of these articles so that they are consistent as a group for a GT or FT nomination. However, obsessing over control cities (which may or may not have changed with recent re-signing projects) and other minor signage-based details on the RJLs when there are bigger tasks to do drives me to untold levels of annoyance. Several times I've just wanted to walk away and let you have free reign to just screw up my hard work for the last 7 years. Imzadi 1979 → 05:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: The sooner you get over this slow-motion "audit" of the details in these tables and stop messing around with them, the sooner I'll be a happy Wikipedian again. Imzadi 1979 → 05:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I usually edit the RJLs because they're easiest to get right most of the time (except some finer details like the phantom 51A exit to John R. Road in downtown Detroit). I generally don't have the resources or know-how for anything bigger which is why I just tweak here and there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

And in the meantime, you make others feel like they're dying a death of a thousand paper cuts. You tweak part of one article, move on to a second and then a third. Eventually you come back to that first article again for more tweaking. Then you bounce to a fourth and come back to the second one for more. Seriously, I'm frustrated to the point that I've almost posted a Wikibreak template and walked away. I've told you before, it wouldn't be so bad if you'd concentrate your tweaking efforts on a single article, tweak everything you're going to tweak, and then move one. It's the constant back and forth hitting the same articles over and over and over again that gets so <expletive> annoying. Imzadi 1979 → 05:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternative Intersection Types

Hi Imzadi1979, thanks for finnishing my recent contribs. Not easy to find and pending on knowing the areal or using streetview, is there something in the US similar like the German de:Blockumfahrung which could be translated with square detour, meaning guide around the block of houses? It is used to handle indirect left turns similar to jughandle intersections but with buildings btwn the carriage ways and slip roads. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 07:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	How pleasant to see such fast and high-quality fixes to my latest new article, Education Action Group Foundation. You are awesome, thank you! Safehaven86 (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	How pleasant to see such fast and high-quality fixes to my latest new article, Education Action Group Foundation. You are awesome, thank you! Safehaven86 (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Copy editing

What does copy editing for flow mean? --ACase0000 (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It means it needs to be edited so the paragraph actually is a narrative of the route instead of a prose version of a junction list. Here are some quick tips for SR 108 (note, I started typing this before I realized it was copyedited by Morriswa):

• Don't repeat specific words and phrases in quick succession (after approximately, SR 108, etc.)
• Mix up what you call SR 108. There is one instance of "the highway", otherwise you only use "SR 108" and "it".
• Don't use junction as a verb

The best thing to do is keep writing, as "getting it right" takes time and elbow grease. –Fredddie™ 02:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A few tips, ACase0000:

• Distances/lengths aren't always a good thing. A few here and there are good, but too many, even those that are nice round mileages in the prose, gets old and repetitive.
• Also, break your section up into separate paragraphs. Find some convenient spots to break the narrative into manageable chunks.
• What is the environment like within the various cities and towns along the route of this road? You say that it enters and exits city limits, but you don't give any idea if it runs through downtown, or just a residential area... Also, why bother with the implied precision of noting the city limits? That's a wordy way to say the road enters the city or town.
• The directional changes are nice to note, but when you don't separate them with other details, it reads like a set of driving directions and not a narrative.

Over all, it's too much "it turns; it enters a city. it exits the city, and it turns again" and not enough of "it turns north and runs along the X River. In Foo, the highway turns easterly into downtown where it intersects SR 1. SR 108 turns south and runs concurrently with SR 1 out of town as far as the town of Bar, where the two highways separate. The highway continues eastward through a rural section of Yada Yada County, passing farms along the way." Now tell me that doesn't flow better and give the reader a sense of what they'd see along the highway. Otherwise, you might as well just copy the Google Maps driving directions.

I hope this helps. Imzadi 1979 → 08:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Writing effectively takes a long time to get a hang of. I've been on Wikipedia since at least 2008, and I'm still trying to learn how to effectively write road articles, even though it is my main focus and passion on Wikipedia. I tried to make that article sound much better than it did. I'm not sure how well I did that. Oh, and this may just be my preference, but I don't think that roads "run". They don't have legs, so they can't run. They travel; they head; they turn; but they don't run. Keep up the good work. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 08:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Rivers lack legs, but they "run". Roads don't physically move, but yet they can "travel". Imzadi 1979 → 08:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The verb "run" has more meanings than the specific "moving feet more quickly than a walk". In fact, there are dozens of other uses for the verb. TCN7JM 09:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help, Fredddie, Imzadi1979, Morriswa and TCN7JM!!! --ACase0000 (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Also Imzadi1979 On the environment in Tennessee cities and towns in kinda weird and hard to determine. For example Gruetli-Laager a city on State Route 108 has a 12.5 square mile area and only around 6 is residential/retail the rest is just farmland and forests. --ACase0000 (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@ACase0000: here is my basic citation and writing technique for RD sections:

1. Find the official DOT paper map you'll need. It should be the most recent map (for current highways), or the last one that shows it (for decommissioned ones).
2. Prepare the {{cite map}} with the important information on the map (publisher, cartography, scale, title, date, map sections/insets).
3. Use the route on that paper map to plot the driving directions in Google Maps (or another, similar service of your choice).
4. Put the GMaps display into satellite mode, and export the URL for the overview map to copy/paste into {{google maps}} with the other details.
5. Start writing the section, zooming in on the GMaps for details about the landscape. You'll be able to tell if areas are farm fields, forests, residential, industrial or commercial areas, or a mixture. Be descriptive, but a bit vague. It's fine to say "passes through downtown" or "the downtown business district", but you shouldn't mention specific businesses normally.
6. After you get your first paragraph written, end it with the footnotes to the paper DOT map and Google Maps. Never cite one without the other as they're working as a team. The paper DOT map gives you the official routing, and Google gives you the satellite view for detailed information
7. Continue with the same writing process for the second and subsequent paragraphs.
8. You may need to consult additional maps for other details. For Michigan, MDOT doesn't mark the National Forests on their paper map, so I'll add a citation to the Rand McNally atlas for that. I also use the MDOT railroad map for the names of the railroads who own lines in the state. In those cases, if I'm going to switch from the paper MDOT map/GMaps combo to the rail map for information, I insert the footnote pair in the middle of the paragraph, write the new information with its cite, and then pick back up with the combo the rest of the way.
9. You may also judiciously add details about landmarks along the way, and if you do so, you'll need citations for your information. Just like the point 8, end the information before that with your paper DOT map/Google Maps pairing of footnotes, add the other information with the appropriate citation, and then continue on.

Given how easy it is to cite the RD section, there is almost no excuse for not having footnotes present from the beginning. Imzadi 1979 → 00:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Imzadi1979!! I already use Google Satellite and a TDOT map :) --ACase0000 (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@ACase0000: um, no you don't. At least, you're not citing the RD sections you've been writing, so no one knows what source(s) you are using. You might also want to take a look at this edit to see some other formatting fixes I made. Imzadi 1979 → 22:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Imzadi1979 I misunderstood you. I use them! How else would I know which directions the routes go and so on? And also What is the point of putting &nsbp; thing? What does it do to help the article? --ACase0000 (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@ACase0000: well, you're not including footnotes to those sources though, which means your work isn't verifiable against reliable sources. As I said, it's so easy to cite the RD section of an article that when it isn't done, an article looks so very incomplete!

As for the non-breaking spaces, ( ), it prevents a browser from using that space as a place to break a line of text. In other words, the "SR" and the "290" can't be on separate lines because the browser has to treat "SR 290" as a single word. You don't know if a reader will be using a smartphone, a tablet, a computer with a regular display, one with a widescreen display, what typeface/size their browser is set to use, or if they're printing the article. All of those can affect how wide each line of text is displayed, which means that the text can break at any point in any paragraph, so it's just best to use non-breaking spaces to keep the two halves of a highway abbreviation together. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!!! :) --ACase0000 (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this Link acceptable? --ACase0000 (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks fine, but your sources don't have to be online. A footnote to the copy of the paper TDOT map you're using is perfectly acceptable. In either case, you should provide publisher, title, date/year, scale (or "Scale not given"), the cartography information, the map sections (if the map has a grid). Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Scale, What do you mean? Like if the map is in scale? And on my TDOT map SR 477 and SR 290 are both in the Grid B-10 do I list that? --ACase0000 (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Maps are Scaled. Someplace on the map, it will usually say something like "1:70,000" (USGS topographic maps use that style scale notation), or say something like "1 inch = 10 miles". That information should be provided with |scale=1:70,000 or |scale=1 in = 10 m in {{cite map}}. ("1 in = 10 mi" can also be converted to "1:633,600" if desired because in that scale, 1 inch on the map equals 633,600 inches on the ground.) If the map doesn't give its scale, and there isn't a graphical bar scale you can measure (don't do this on a scanned map unless you're sure that the map isn't being zoomed on your display), then you should add |scale=Scale not given. In rare cases, the map isn't drawn to scale, so |scale=Not to scale is the appropriate detail. Imzadi 1979 → 03:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok Thanks I get it now. Sorry to keep asking questions. Have a Good Night!! and BTW I cited a source on TN State Route 477. --ACase0000 (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@ACase0000: you want to use the full options in {{cite map}}. Take a look at this edit. Imzadi 1979 →

Cite map templates with unsupported parameters

Are you interested in fixing {{cite map}} templates with unsupported parameters that are showing up in Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters? I thought you might want to see what has surfaced, in case there are adjustments to be made to the template.

As the database refreshes over the next month or two, we'll see articles showing up in that category due to the cite map template update, along with the usual assortment of unsupported parameters that editors add for a variety of reasons.

I have already fixed a bunch of straightforward misspellings ("cartography" is a challenge for some editors), but I left a dozen or so articles that seemed less clear to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: since I'm responsible for most of the content in the 200+ Michigan highway articles, I've created {{cite MDOT map}} and {{cite MDOT PRFA}} to standardize the citations to MDOT's old road maps and its Physical Reference Finder Application. I've been switching out all of the citations in the articles so that all of the footnotes get updated to have authors, publishers, etc. The project also means that each footnote gets fixed to remove any lingering errors that are now being picked up by the Lua module code. I'm about halfway through the articles, and once I'm done, I can move on to other fixes. Imzadi 1979 → 04:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Would really like help making Fort WW Fort Colv MR page route better, user srichart4

I really struggled figuring out a way to describe the route of the Fort Walla Walla-Fort Colville Military Road. If this was your wiki page, what would you recommend doing?

Sue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srichart4 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Srichart4: I work mostly on modern state highways, so my perspective is skewed from that angle. For those, we work off a basic structure colloquially called the "Big Three". For a good article on a state highway, it should have:

1. A section that describes the route of the highway in prose from one end to the other, noting the landscape and other conditions along the roadway. This is the "Route description" (RD) section. Any of the Featured Articles for the project, like M-28 (Michigan highway), will have good examples. The idea of the RD is to give the reader the sense of what it would be like to drive the roadway in question. A good RD sticks to objective information without straying too far into the realm of a tour guide.
2. A section that details the history of the highway, at least from designation by the state through to modern day. It is even better if the "History" section can discuss pre-designation history, like on U.S. Route 41 in Michigan, M-1 (Michigan highway) or U.S. Route 16 in Michigan. The history section gives the reader an idea of what happened to produce the modern routing of the roadway, or the last routing before the designation was decommissioned. In the case of former highways, the section can also provide a bit of an epilog to discuss what's happened to the physical roadways after the loss of the designation, like U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan) does.
3. A section with a table that follows the formatting of WP:Manual of Style/Road junction lists. Nicknamed the RJL, this section is usually titled "Major intersections" or "Junction list" for highways which aren't freeways, or "Exit list" for those that are. For a road that has freeway and non-freeway segments, we use either section name depending on what a majority of the length contains. In some cases, we use a bulleted list rather than a full table, like U.S. Route 31#Major intersections. You should be able to find a format you can adapt.

That basic structure works for other types of roads, like Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive (the "Points of interest" section mimics an exit list using the numbered PoIs from the National Park Service) or Brockway Mountain Drive, so its not limited to just modern highways. The formula can be expanded with other sections, like those in the listed articles on historic bridges, memorial highway names or even M-1's "Cultural impact".

While I'm writing, I add the appropriate footnotes to cite my work. When I do those, I use the citation templates, like {{cite map}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}} and such. While you can craft citations by hand, I've found that using the templates is much easier. They take all of the information that I supply and turn it into a consistent format that looks more polished. They also put the appropriate bits into quotation marks or italics, append the appropriate/correct abbreviations like "p." or "pp." (for page or pages, respectively; doubling the abbreviation pluralizes it so the § for section becomes §§ for sections, etc.), handle linking things, and keep the output in the same order from citation to citation.

As for Fort Walla Walla–Fort Colville Military Road:

• The "Traveling the road now" section acts like a RD, but it's written in the wrong tone. Instead of writing in the imperative tense, you should be writing in the third person. passing the..."
  • "Begin at Historic Fort Walla Walla, 46°02′53″N 118°21′57″W, and proceed north on State Route 125 (SR 125)," should be "The road begins at Historic Fort Walla Walla and proceeds north on State Route 125 (SR 125). It passes the ..."
  • I'd drop the section headings for each county. A good article structure should have multiple paragraphs of medium length per subsection. Take a look again at the M-28 article to see what I mean. Also, headings in articles shouldn't contain wikilinks.
  • Personally, I'd retitle the section "Route description" as well.
• The sections titled "The road prior to the U.S. Army's Fort Colville" and "After becoming a U.S. military road" would make good subsections of a single History section. According to MOS:HEAD, we normally don't start headings with the word "the", and we try to avoid repeating the subject of the article in the heading. I'd call redo the first one as "Prior to Fort Colville" and leave the second alone.
• I'd add some sort of junction list, but this is the lowest priority.
• Then my perfectionist side would update all of the citations. Yeah, I'd switch them all over to templates, but I'd also fill in the missing details. Not all sources have author bylines; older newspaper or popular magazine articles typically went without a byline, so you can't always supply one. Journal articles and books without a listed author are quite rare. Sometimes the author is the same as the publisher, especially for things like road maps or government publications. At a minimum, you should have the title of an article (if in a magazine, journal or newspaper), the title of the published work (the book, magazine, journal or newspaper), place of publication (for a book or map; also needed on newspapers that don't use the city name in the paper name), publisher (for a book or map; optional and usually omitted on newspapers, magazines or journals), any page numbers to locate the cited content in the book/journal/magazine/newspaper. Maps have section numbers or inset names for in-source locations.

  It's also very nice to include ISBNs (books, maps), ISSNs (many magazines, newspapers or journals) or OCLCs (any source cataloged in a library). Older books won't have an ISBN, and ISSNs are optional for periodicals, so if those aren't available, I find the OCLC on http://www.worldcat.org/.

  When dealing with sources that I've read online, I separate them into two categories: those that originate online and those that are republished. For both types, I supply the URL for the webpage. The access date for the source is important a) if the website's content is impermanent and subject to change or deletion, or b) if the source lacks a publication date.

  • If the source is republished online, I treat it like it were a paper source. So if it's a book on Google Books, I cite it with {{cite book}} just like a paper copy, and supply the URL and |via=Google Books to let readers know I accessed it "via Google Books". If the website requires a paid subscription, then |subscription=yes lets a reader know. If an unpaid registration is required, |registration=yes.
  • If the source originates online, like an information page from a company or government agency, I fill out as much information as I can in {{cite web}} or another appropriate template, and I always supply the access date. (In case the link ever goes dead, the access date is important to other editors who want to revive the citation with a link to an archive site.)
  • The various templates have additional options to deal with reprinted books (put the year of the reprint in |year= and the original publishing year in |orig-year= while citing the location and publisher for the reprinted edition, not the original because you're citing the reprint, which could have been changed from the original and the page numbers almost always don't line up...), books published in a series, authored chapters in an edited book, etc.

If you have any questions, just ask. I'm more than happy to answer them. I apologize if this is too detailed, but there are a number of things that I'd do to that article to bring it up to my personal standards. As a side note, most of my primary work has been listed as Good Articles or Featured Articles. I believe strongly in laying a good foundation early so that when I get "done" with my initial writing and research that an article can be reviewed for GA status. GA isn't a very high standard like FA, but it's not a cake walk either. Imzadi 1979 → 05:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what I wanted in a reply. Now, I have a clue where I should go with the article. I'd written it, because the road, although very important during its time, has disappeared from most history books and even local stories. Your explanation will help with some other articles that need improvement like the Franklin D Roosevelt Lake article. Thank you for taking the time to help. Srichart4 (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Question on book citation. Let's take the Anne Streeter book as an example. If I'm reading the Cite Book example correctly, I don't include the page numbers or the publisher, which seems strange to me. And, it should look like this: I did citation number 21 in this style. Is Anne P. Streeter's name as author in red, because she doesn't have a wiki page? Also, I'm viewing this book on my Kindle. The ISBN check didn't like the ebook ISBN, so I used the hardcopy ISBN, which I do have access to. Awaiting your response. I've made a list of all my citations and will update them after I know I'm doing it correctly. Srichart4 (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Breaking down the questions:

• Total page numbers are omitted in our citations. If you're citing just page 1, use |page=1. If you're citing a range of pages, or multiple separate ones, then |pages=4–6 or |pages=3, 9, 27.
• Publishers are included for books. It is usually only omitted on periodicals (magazines, journals, newspapers)
• Yes, her name appears in red because there is no article about her. You can skip the |authorlink= unless the author has an article.
• I would double check that you had entered the ISBN for the Kindle version right. A simple typo can make it fail the check. Another option is that Kindle editions should have an ASIN, which can be used in place of the ISBN through |asin=.
  • However, if you have access to the hardcover, that's a better option since you can cite the specific pages within the book. Kindle page numbers just vary too much to be a stable in-source location.
• If you're using the Kindle version, and not a paper edition, I'd add |edition=Kindle to note that.

I hope that helps. Imzadi 1979 → 06:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Quack?

Any thoughts on whether User:Interstate 285 is the same as User:2006 December? Looking at the user pages and the poor edits thus far, the editing idiosyncrasies are much too coincidental. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kinu: maybe. I'm cautious about watching to see what happens with that account before jumping right to SPI/DUCK-land and calling for the ban hammer. Imzadi 1979 → 05:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Rschen7754 beat us to it... --Kinu ^t/_c 20:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm mostly inactive due to real-life issues, but it looked pretty clear to me from a 30-second glance, so I went ahead and hit the script button. --Rschen7754 04:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Maintained}} deleted

Since you had contributed an extensive and informed keep argument to the TFD, I think you would be interested to know that it has just been closed as delete from what seems like a very sketchy reading of the TFD. Several editors have been discussing this on the closing admin's talk page, if you'd be interested in joining in. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Tomball Tollway sign

Here is a URL link to what the Tomball Tollway signs from the Harris County Toll Road Authority will look like

https://www.hctra.org/tomball/images/tomball-toll.png

-- User:Jrooksjr/Sig1 23:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jrooksjr: you mean like this: ? Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Have you added this shield to the template {{Jct}} so that it can be used to produce that shield instead of using {{Jct|state=TX|Toll|249|name1=[[Texas State Highway 249|Tomball Tollway]]}} to produce SH 249 Toll (Tomball Tollway)?

-- User:Jrooksjr/Sig1 01:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jrooksjr: {{jct|state=TX|Toll|249|Toll|Tomball}} → SH 249 Toll / Tomball Tollway just like the other toll roads in Texas, although at the moment it bypasses the Tomball Tollway redirect. Imzadi 1979 → 01:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, the Toll|Tomball was what I was looking for -- User:Jrooksjr/Sig1 02:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

SH 242 Toll direct connector ramps

Originally, the Montgomery County Toll Road Authority (MCTRA) was the entity that was going to operate the two Tolled Direct Connector ramps (DC's) located at   I-45 / SH 242. Now, in a recent television interview with one of the County Commissioners of Montgomery County, he said that "The Harris County Toll Road Authority" (HCTRA) will be operating the DC's.

I am speculating that the two TRAs have worked out a deal to where the HCTRA will collect the tolls and giving them to the MCTRA and that the signage will be that of the MCTRA's design and not of the HCTRA's?

I guess we will find out in a few weeks, barring any further delays, when the DC's are supposed to open?

-- User:Jrooksjr/Sig1 02:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Um, I guess? Texas stuff, other than making shield graphics and reformatting tables, is pretty much out of my realm of interests and knowledge. I'm from Michigan, and Michigan is the focus of my work, although I like to help out where I can. Imzadi 1979 → 02:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I found my answer in an older newspaper article stating that the two agencies are partnering up to work together   "Flyover project delayed, toll cost still undecided". The Courier.

-- User:Jrooksjr/Sig1 02:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

FM 1485 - History

I followed the same pattern used on other FM Roads as my pattern for use on FM 1485 and FM 1314 - when I created those pages and infact you reworded the History on FM 1314 which was the new pattern that I used on FM 1485 -- so now you have to make up your mind on which way to go on how to use the Histories from TxDot on the wiki - history is history, I can not reword it too much or it becomes a made up history.

If the rewording on FM 1485 is a copyright violations then so is the history that YOU reworded for me on FM 1314.

(M o r p h | ^C | _T) 13:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jrooksjr: you have to make an actual attempt to reword the exact presentation used to denote those facts. You can't just copy the date, insert a semi colon, and copy the text word for word from what they used with very minimal changes. That's the issue at play:

Compare:

"On July 22, 1949; From SH 105, southeastward to FM 2090, a distance of approximately 9.3 miles in Montgomery County."

with:

"7/22/1949 / From SH 105, 3.5 miles east of Conroe, southeastward to a road intersection, a distance of approximately 9.3 miles. (Montgomery County)"

That is too similar. Yes, restate the facts, but use your own words and sentence order in the process. When it's too close, it causes problems.

You also need to drop the leading zeroes on dates, per MOS:DATESNO, and if you use a semicolon to join sentences, the word immediately after the punctuation mark is not capitalized. That was the biggest clue that this was a copy/paste job. You should also remember that you need to add conversions any time US customary measurements are stated in the text of an article, per MOS:CONVERSIONS; not all of our readers are American, and we request the same of articles on topics outside of the US so that Americans can better comprehend the distances quoted in those articles.

I tried rewriting the text with this edit. It avoids the stilted and ungrammatical construction you used of "date; description. date; description. date; description." Even if what you had wasn't so close to the source wording, it was still bad writing for an article. Use a little variety in sentence structure, or you end up with WP:PROSELINE. Yeah, we write in chronological, "timeline" order, but good writing will mix things up to avoid monotony. Also, you didn't need the two headings because it's still the same highway. If the file had a totally different FM 1485 and the current FM 1485, then the separate heading for the previous designation would be good, but here it's just a redescription of the same roadway.

As for the cyan color for "route transition" in the table, that's not a correct usage. That color is designed for cases like the Ohio Turnpike where the article is about a named highway, and along its length it transitions from one number to another, which in the US we'd normally use the green concurrency color anyway. The color was added to deal with the situations in Australia where the articles are written on named highways whose highway numbers change back and forth because they don't have a 1:1 correspondence between name and number. Imzadi 1979 → 14:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

On another note, fix your signature. You cannot transclude another page for your signature: WP:SIG#NoTemplates. Imzadi 1979 → 14:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of us are not Rhode Scholars or writers by nature and can not think of prolific ways to reword something - so I guess I will no longer include the histories on pages and let you or others fill it in so that it will not be considered plagiarized. -- (M o r p h | ^C | _T) 14:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jrooksjr: I'm sorry you feel that way. The point is that you need to vary the wording more than what you did. You can flip the word order around to move the date into the middle or end of the sentence. You can write two sentences to convey what TxDOT does in one by adding details they imply, like I did with the creation of FM 1485. They used just the words "New Designation", but we can expand on that a bit. You can skip repeating the total length of the highway after each change if you note how much was added or subtracted in that change. Use a few synonyms, like "lengthened" in place of "extended". Try a few of those tricks, and your text will recite the same facts without using their wording. Imzadi 1979 → 15:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Texas Farm to Market Road 1314 needs to be moved

Texas Farm to Market Road 1314 needs to be moved to Farm to Market Road 1314

P.S. The other Farm to Market roads do have Texas Farm to Market Road #### as well, but they are redirected to the Farm to Market Road #### along with FM ####, Farm to Market Road #### (Texas) and several others variations based on this page   Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Texas/Completion list/Farm to Market and Ranch to Market Roads/txfm   which is used to produce:

1485 (just made) -   Farm to Market Road 1485 – Farm to Market Road 1485 (Texas) – Texas Farm to Market Road 1485 – FM 1485 – FM 1485 (TX) – Farm Road 1485 – disambiguation TxDOT - All links redirect to the completed page

1486 (not made yet) -   Farm to Market Road 1486 – Farm to Market Road 1486 (Texas) – Texas Farm to Market Road 1486 – FM 1486 – FM 1486 (TX) – Farm Road 1486 – disambiguation TxDOT

-- (M o r p h | ^C | _T) 17:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jrooksjr: most editors should be able to move the articles if they need changing. The only time we wouldn't be able to make the move is if:

1. There is a redirect present at the new article; and
2. That redirect has edits to it that are more than the original edit used to create the redirect.

The system won't let us move pages over the top of an existing article, and the way it uses to check if the target is an existing article is to look at what editing history it has. If there's a history of edits to the intended target, we'd have to tag it for an admin to delete and move. I just looked at the one category and noticed that the one had "Texas" in the name while the others didn't, so I moved it.

P.S., there are efforts underway to merge all of the FM articles into lists, by 100s, because of the borderline notability status of the individual highways. They're essentially secondary highways, which haven't been well received in terms of notability. List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (1–99) and List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (100–199) are examples of what has been done by others so far, and eventually the rest will be merged. Some individual highways will be summarized in the lists and linked to their full articles with the {{main}} tags, like FM 1, but those will be rare. Imzadi 1979 → 17:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello Imzadi1979,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
• Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem with template TxDOT

Normally we can use {{TxDOT|US|59}} to get the following:

Transportation Planning and Programming Division (n.d.). "U.S. Highway No. 59". Highway Designation Files. Texas Department of Transportation.

but when you try to use {{TxDOT|BS|59l}} for the US 59 Business Loop L located in Splendora, Texas - it give me this message

Transportation Planning and Programming Division (n.d.). "Business State Highway No. 59-l". Highway Designation Files. Texas Department of Transportation.

so I replaced that with the following {{Cite web|url = http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/BU/BU0059l.htm%7Ctitle = BUSINESS U. S. HIGHWAY NO. 59-L|website = Highway Designation Files.|publisher = Texas Department of Transportation.|publication-place = Transportation Planning and Programming Division.}} to produce the following

"BUSINESS U. S. HIGHWAY NO. 59-L". Highway Designation Files. Transportation Planning and Programming Division.: Texas Department of Transportation.

>As you can see it is not displayed in the same order as the {{TxDOT}} displays and I do not know the proper parameters to make it match

(M o r p h | ^C | _T) 22:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind! I figured it out after I viewed the code for the template {{TxDOT}} - I did not know about the 3rd parameter for when they have letters -- (M o r p h | ^C | _T) 23:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jrooksjr: There is Template talk:TxDOT for issues and concerns. Several editors watch that page and can make changes. As for the third parameter, that's listed on the documentation at the bottom where it says:

{{TxDOT | type | number | X | accessdate= }}

For the various business routes, Interstates 35E and 35W, or Interstates 69E, 69C and 69W, substitute the necessary letter suffix for X.

Imzadi 1979 → 23:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I just reformatted the /doc page for that template to make that set up clearer. Imzadi 1979 → 23:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

ITN credit

ThaddeusB (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I-75

The original exit on the north side of the Zilwaukee Bridge connected to Westervelt Road, but the current exit since 1987 connects to Adams Street. Is this enough of a change to note Westervelt as a former interchange, or should it be considered a reconstruction of the same interchange?

Also, the M-59/Adams Road exit in Rochester Hills was relocated significantly east of where it used to be. Is that enough to consider the old exit a former interchange or not? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: frankly, a lot of former interchanges need not be listed in these tables. Your level of attention to detail in them borders on the obsessive. That level of detail is also very specialist-oriented when we are writing articles for a generalist audience. I really wish you'd concentrate your attention on Michigan highway articles differently. MDOT does periodically do major resigning projects which have resulted in control city changes, so it is nice that someone takes the time to audit and verify them, but you should take a step back and think about the potential impacts of both of your questions above.

The Zilwaukee Bridge realigned I-75 in that area, and any milepost information for a former interchange would be meaningless at best, or impossible to determine at worst, because of the realignment. Noting the name in the notes for the current interchange that supplanted the function of the old one would also be a trivial detail that's meaningless to all but the most die-hard roadgeek, In short, nothing of value comes from obsessing over the first situation.

As for the second one, you need to consider whether adding a redundant row to the table benefits a general reader, whether adding a note that the interchange was relocated with date(s) adds value, or whether the status quo would satisfy that general reader in the context of the exit list. Since this is a matter of history that did alter the design of I-75 somewhat, maybe the best solution is to find the timeframe for the interchange reconstruction, and add that into the appropriate part of the history section. Imzadi 1979 → 05:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Just because. Pine✉ 08:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Pine! Imzadi 1979 → 05:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Logo sign article

Hi there. Recently, User:Riiga has tagged the Logo sign article for globalization. However, are logo signs really used on highways in other countries? The only other country that I know that uses them is Canada, and only in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia (a fourth province, New Brunswick, has had a logo sign program in the past but has since discontinued it). Perhaps we can include a Canadian section if we could find some sources on their history in Canada, however, I don't know if logo signs are used in any other countries other than the U.S. and Canada. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 21:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Andros 1337: I honestly don't know of any other countries that use them. There are several examples of road signs that are fairly unique to the US and Canada, and I would not surprise me that these are another unique example. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sweden uses these signs, with logos in the squares. RL example. Riiga (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The only help I can offer (sorry for talk page spamming you Imzadi) is that most of the signs in Ontario are for local businesses who pay for the signage. On provincial highways, these are handled by Tourism Ontario. On local roads, they are handled by the upper-tier municipality/county/region for the area. No idea on history. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Typically, the DOT will install a blank sign at the interchange and it's up to the businesses to pay for a spot on the sign. I worked at a place that advertised on a logo sign and they had to pay for a spot on the sign and pay for their small sign that was tacked onto the blank. –Fredddie™ 00:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

DrKiernan

I cannot remember ever falling out with you, so I don't know why you feel it necessary to be so rude to me. I would be grateful if you treated me with the respect that you would prefer to receive yourself. DrKiernan (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@DrKiernan: I'm sorry, no rudeness was intended. {{cite map}} has a few different parameters, and it used to use |format= to put the format next to the output of |map= and |map-url= (and used to put |url= on the |map= output), so there a few lingering formats that need to be shifted to |map-format= hanging out there. That is all. Imzadi 1979 → 14:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Five or more years have passed since Brockway Mountain Drive, List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan, M-27 (Michigan highway), M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan), M-185 (Michigan highway) and U.S. Route 41 in Michigan were promoted, so it's my pleasure to award you this Timeless Imperial Triple Crown. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Need your help on a few citations

Hey I was wondering if you could take a look at the last paragraph of Ontario Highway 3#Connections with the United States and add citations from your article as need be? I'm not the least bit familiar with histories on the other side of the river. Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Floydian: I added the requisite citations for the decommissioning of US 25 in the state and the switch from M-3 to M-85 on Fort Street. Let me know if you need anything else, and I'll find it for you. Imzadi 1979 → 01:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for U.S. Route 25 in Michigan

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Understanding current and former meanings of I-440

Look at Interstate 440. The highways are 3 that are currently I-440 and one that was formerly I-440. However, as a definition of I-440, all 4 meanings are current. (The sense of the word "current" here is current as a definition, not a thing with a name.) An example is:

Soviet Union = A former country in Eastern Europe and Northern Asia.

The country being talked about in this definition is former, but the definition is still current because of the word "former". So the definition is current; it is (not was) a definition of Soviet Union. Similarly, A highway in Oklahoma is a former definition of Interstate 440. But "A former designation of a highway in Oklahoma that's now part of Interstate 44" is a current definition of Interstate 440. So all 4 meanings of Interstate 440 are current. Georgia guy (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: What is the point of posting this on my talk page? Imzadi 1979 → 22:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You're the one I want to know how you understand it, because you're the one who reverted my movement of the Oklahoma highway to the bottom of Interstate 440 (as well as 2 other edits of mine.) Georgia guy (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to put the one entry at the bottom. You have an obsession with "current-official-signed", as you put it, yet the list was in geographic order, which is how most of the highway stuff for the US is done: west-to-east or south-to-north. We regularly revert well-intentioned edits that rearrange the "Transportation in X County, State" categories to keep them in geographic order, for example. The individual highways on Business routes of U.S. Route 10 in Michigan are not in current-v-former order, but west-to-east geographic order. Ditto the business routes listed at the bottom of Interstate 96, also west-to-east. If the I-440 page needs updates to satisfy you in terms of "current definition", fine, but the order of the entries was appropriate as it was. Imzadi 1979 → 22:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

May we use your image of the Marquette Michigan Federal Building?

Hello,

My name is Cordes Hoffman and I am a photo researcher for an educational textbook publisher, Pearson Education.

We are are interested in using an image that you own. I found it here on Wikipedia, and it says that you have marked it as public domain. May I ask your specific permission to use the image within the book?

You can reply to me here, or thru my email, cordes.hoffman@qbslearning.com

I greatly appreciate your time and attention!

Sincerely,

2602:306:CDAE:8540:8506:3C7E:5069:9421 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Cordes

Pulaski Skyway

Thanks for the catch. BMK (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox linking RfC

Since you commented on the recent FDR infobox linking, there is a broader based RfC going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC concerning the infobox linking of all political offices. Please comment if it is of interest to you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Quixotic plea

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for U.S. Route 33 in Michigan

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Contributor Barnstar Congratulations on getting Michigan de-B'ed and to become the first state to have all articles at GA or better! Dough4872 03:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

ExternalLinkIcons.css

You are the only one using User:Gadget850/ExternalLinkIcons.css. I will be deleting this in a few weeks, so please copy it over if you wish to continue to use it. -- Gadget850 ^talk 23:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gadget850: I removed it. It seemed to stop working for me a while ago anyway, I forgot all about that script. Imzadi 1979 → 06:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of U.S. Route 12 in Michigan

Hello! Your submission of U.S. Route 12 in Michigan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 20:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox road/shieldmain/IND

Hi, I believe that either your last changes or the previous change by Fredddie to Template:Infobox road/shieldmain/IND caused a lot of missing shield issues - not sure if this was intentional and your going to create the new images or if it was a mistake?

Found as the missing images popped up in Category:Articles with missing files - including:

• 30 starting National Highway
• Nagpur–Aurangabad–Mumbai express highway
• Trans-Arunachal Highway
• Yedshi–Latur–Nanded Highway

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: I created a graphic for every National Highway in India based on the lists of the current numbers in use and the old numbers previously in use. That was 330-some odd graphics created, uploaded and sorted. However, it appears that we are a victim of the mass-disorganization of the Indian Roads project, and I'll have to make another batch of graphics, something I can do later when I get some time.

The reason we made the change is so that the graphics used look correct. Fredddie made a template based on the proper standards for those signs, and I used that template to create proper graphics so that we aren't using a blank graphic that doesn't match the standards and overlaying text. In overlaying the text, the typeface is never right. Imzadi 1979 → 21:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update - just wanted to bring it to your attention. The old signs did look really bad - glad your on-top of sorting things. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, silly me for thinking that the editors had listed every highway number in List of National Highways in India or List of National Highways in India by old highway number. *shrugs* Imzadi 1979 → 22:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Շքանշա՜ն քեզ համար։

	Վաստակավոր ադմինիստրատոր
	abrikos Boturyan (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Interstate 94 in Michigan

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Chicago freeway

Per your request, I wrote my reasoning for removing the Chicago freeway segment on the U.S. Route 12 page in the talk page, please review. Thank you! NBA2030 (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for U.S. Route 12 in Michigan

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

On the I-69 page

On the I-69 page there is a problem with the bullets showing in the middle of the mileage table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkbngr (talk • contribs) 06:32, June 15, 2015‎ (UTC)

That must be something in your browser, because they've never shown up there before. Imzadi 1979 → 06:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I-41

I drive 41 every day into green bay, although I know reading webpages I-41 was supposed to terminate at I-43, the first reassurance shield is at the Lineville road exit. If that is in error then I assume the WisDOT will correct that soon enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8daynegb (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gr8daynegb: do you have a published source for that information? We must follow the information published in existing sources per WP:NOR and WP:V. Personal observation is not enough. Imzadi 1979 → 00:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I-41

If I add a photo of the first reassurance shield by Lineville Road(the ones you kept undoing), will that be good enough that you won't undo that edit I make?(I get that people may amend it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8daynegb (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you not see the problem with the sentence: " Was originally stated the northern terminus would be at I-43, but first southern reassurance sign put up around 6/14/15 at the County M Exit (Lineville Rd., Exit 173) in Suamico brings that into doubt."? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not concerned about that sentence(yes I see how that could have been better), and that will come in time, or not as need be. But If I edit the terminus on this page to (CTH-M, US-41, US-141) instead of (US-41, US-141, I-43) with a photo of the first reassurance being just south of the on ramp from the CTH-M exit I am asking if that is enough proof that that imzadi1979 won't undo it. The northern terminus is incorrect but asking if the photo I'd upload is enough proof. There are comments on aaroads.com in their forum page referring to this but I assume chat board chatter does not up to the standard that it will stick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8daynegb (talk • contribs) 23:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, just go search through this, and report back here with what you gather and provide links to where you found that info. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If you check US 41 closures (http://www.us41wisconsin.gov/closures/closures) and scroll down to 4/30/15-5/30/15 I-41 duck creek there is a mention "Southbound I-41 ramps to and from Lineville Road will be closed the nights of May 1, 2 and 4 for a traffic switch". I have a photograph from that overpass as well that would confirm the reassurance sign I talk about. Again I am only asking because IMO if I edit it just to be undone then its a waste of my time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8daynegb (talk • contribs) 23:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, a few points are in order, Gr8daynegb. The official sources say that I-41 ends at the interchange with I-43 in Howard. Even WisDOT's spokespeople say that it does. So based on that, the designation ends at I-43. The webpage quoted above could be a typo, or a misprint that conflates I-41 with US 41, which is understandable since they run concurrently for hundreds of miles through most of the state of Wisconsin.

We have to follow the reliable sources, and we can't substitute our own observations. That's the very core of WP:NOR, no original research. What people say on the AARoads Forum is immaterial for our purposes, except that it can prompt us to find sources we can use to cite information in articles. There is a bit of an exception to NOR related to photography. An accurate photo of a road sign could be used as a source. We did that on M-143 (Michigan highway) to demonstrate that a previously unsigned highway was being signed. However, I'm not sure that a photo in this case would work. For M-143, the mere existence of the photo was enough to prove that MDOT had signed the highway, but the mere existence of an I-41 sign would only prove a known fact: that I-41 exists in signage. A photo to prove that it exists north of the I-43 interchange would need to have additional context in the background that makes it very obvious about its location. That's actually a pretty tall order unless you can get other signage in the photo, like this one of I-41 north/US 41 north about a 1⁄2 mile (0.80 km) south of the exit 60 interchange with WIS 145. Between the two signs visible in that photo, we can cross-reference it to a state highway map to prove its location.

We have one final option, Gr8daynegb to note the discrepancy between signage posted and the official definitions. Did WisDOT post their signage plans someplace so that we can see that the department ordered new I-41 signs for the freeway north of the I-43 interchange? If so, we could cite those signage plans to add a sentence like: "While the official definition for I-41 has it ending at the I-43 interchange, WisDOT's signing plan for the conversion shows signs to be installed north of that interchange for about two miles (3.2 km) to the CTH-M exit in Suamico." Such a source would not alter the official definition and should not be used to change the terminus in infoboxes, change other articles to lengthen the concurrency or change List of Interstate Highways or List of Interstate Highways in Wisconsin. Imzadi 1979 → 04:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Yooper dialect

Hello. Perhaps the Yooper dialect (or sub-dialect, really?) should be its own section on the "Upper Midwest American English" page. I don't really see why it gets its own page. There are a few lexical features and phonological characteristics listed, though none are cited. The citations that appear at the bottom of the page have no links and in no way clearly explain all the supposed dialectal information on the article itself; it all appears to be original research. And how many sub-dialects earn their own page? I think a section within the Upper Midwest dialect page would be a better fit. Thoughts? Wolfdog (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: the article can be improved to use specific citations instead of the general ones listed, but they are still enough to satisfy WP:GNG. If GNG is the standard we use to judge notability, and with the length of the article as it exists, then there's no reason to merge. In fact, one could predict per WP:SIZE that it would need to be split back out with any effort at expanding the topic on this dialect. Imzadi 1979 → 02:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That all makes sense, except none of the information has in-line citations. Where is it coming from? Wolfdog (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: it's called a general citation. Rather than using footnotes to specify the source of each piece of information, the sources used are just listed at the end. It's not as convenient for verification purposes, but it's still a valid way to handle things. Imzadi 1979 → 02:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I get that. But it also is a rather convenient way to allow in original research (even if done in good faith, as I'm sure it is). It seems very possible to me that none of the sources at the end actually give these specifics about the variety's phonology and lexicon. At the least, I'll add a verification template, which was designed for exactly this kind of problem, which I think shows that, even if it may technically be valid, it's a fairly sloppy and useless strategy. Wolfdog (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that the article didn't need some improvements, but it has enough "significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject" to satisfy notability concerns to stand alone as a separate article. It also has enough pertinent information to preclude merging it away into another article without losing that information on size-based concerns.

Tag the items inline that need footnotes, if necessary, and let people add them. General citations are useful for information that can be found in any number of texts, keeping the article from being littered with footnotes at the end of every sentence when anyone can consult a few sources for the content of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 03:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

OneClickArchiver

Be careful with User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver and other tools. About 18 months ago, you archived a bunch of stuff from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads to Talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Archive 2. I moved that page to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Archive - out of sequence 2009-2012 and added a link to it at the top of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads. I've also verified that the search function works as expected. I haven't taken the trouble to update the headers in the existing archives or the navigation header that will be automatically pre-pended to new archive pages, because honestly, it's probably not worth the effort. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this to my attention 18 months later? Imzadi 1979 → 04:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see now, and I've de-archived every section to the main page, davidwr, and I've had the archive pages deleted. In the next day or so, the bot should rebuild the archives correctly. (I could have just moved all of the sections into the two main archives in the appropriate chronological places, but this way we'll know that the bot gets the archive sizes done right, etc.)

I've never see the OneClickArchiver do that before or since. I've used the script a multitude of times over the last few years on wikiproject talk pages, like WT:USRD, and it's never done that. In other words, this is an 18-month-old glitch that should never be repeated, so "warning" me about using an automated tool comes off the wrong way. I trust you were trying to be friendly about it though, so I'll overlook your perceived tone. Imzadi 1979 → 04:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came across as abrasive, and I thank you for your consideration and feedback. If I came across that way to you, then I'll need to find a more polite way of handling things the next time I run across someone who happened to use a script on the day it developed a glitch. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for John D. Voelker

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 24, 2015

A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 01:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: the first thing I notice is that the M-28 marker is being used as the image, yet this is for Business M-28, so it should have the Business plate above the M-28 marker. Of course, it would be better to have a photo of the actual roadway. If the photos in the article aren't good enough, I happen to live near one of the communities. Maybe I can take a little drive soon to snap a newer photo. (Also, the marker looks strangely too large at that size; they're only 70px tall in the infobox of the article, so 133px looks way too big.)

Otherwise, the prose looks fine. We could drop the "(US 41)" from the text; it's in the article lead since that highway is mentioned several more times in the article. I'll see about adding some content about the modern Jackson Park to the article on the Jackson Mine, since the park is outside of the former caving grounds to serve as the memorial to the mine within the formerly inaccessible mine properties. That way we can wikilink the park's mention in the blurb. Imzadi 1979 → 04:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, feel free to add the link when you want to. Pinging Chris on the image. If we remove "(US 41)", what do you want to do with "US 41/M-28"? - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that, Dank. It just goes to show how much I edit in this area that I read the full and abbreviated versions the same way intuitively. Imzadi 1979 → 04:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Do we have any images of the road itself on Commons? I've pinged a friend from Marquette; hopefully we can get some before the 24th. I think it would be better than the road sign. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  We have File:BUS M-28 CR 480.JPG, which is in the article now. Otherwise, as I mentioned, Chris, I don't live that far away, so I can take some photos in the next few days. I'll be in Negaunee Thursday afternoon if not tomorrow. Imzadi 1979 → 04:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I saw that, but was hoping for a less residential area (similar to File:M-28 M-64 Duplex Near Lake Gogebic.JPG). The signs may have good EV, but I'm not sure the average reader will be hooked by the image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492: I'll see what I can do. A lot of the highway follows residential streets or runs through portions of the two cities' downtowns though. The rest in the sorta rural portion along County Road and Reedy Street isn't going to be scenic like that photo. Imzadi 1979 → 05:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• No worries about that, then. Anything that shows what the road itself is like would be good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dank and Crisco 1492: commons:Category:M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan) is what I have. I'm especially pleased with File:Bus M-28 Negaunee Silver Street Y South1.jpg because it shows the fork in Silver Street where Bus. M-28 curves westward (right) and the eastward branch of the fork which used to carry M-35. I'm planning on playing with color corrections, and in the case of the one photo, a slight perspective correction, later tonight. If there are any you'd like cropped a bit, let me know. There's one more spot in Negaunee I intent to photograph here, which I may have done before you see this message. Imzadi 1979 → 20:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Looks good. Love how you got a bit of altitude to look down the road. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492: the rest of the photos are up. I'll play with color corrections on the few that were shot through car windows later. As for that photo's elevation, there's an overpass on Rail Street (used to carry the interurban rail lines before it was turned into a city street), and that's where I was standing to take some photographs. Imzadi 1979 → 01:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  Great. Image added. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: a last-minute thought on the blurb. A link to Marquette Iron Range might be in order, if possible. Imzadi 1979 → 05:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. - Dank (push to talk) 12:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

European route E30

If you're bored and need something to work on, I started a bulleted junction list for European route E30 in my sandbox. The table that is there now is untenable. –Fredddie™ 02:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

simultaneous |date= and |year=

{{INDOT map}} has similar problems to {{Ohio road map}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)