It's a disambiguation page with a strange name. Think of it like John Smith being "list of people named John Smith"; here we have a problem with some being Route, some being Highway, etc. By the way, I didn't break the links; they were broken, since the reader will want an article about the route, not a list. (If there's almost nothing to say about the route, a redirect might be best.) --NE205:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NE2, I'm 99.9% sure you are mistaken about modern Utah State Route 30 being part of the Midland Trail. For starters, US-6 in CA and NV is signed as the midland trail, and per everything I've ever seen it used the same route as the Lincoln highway form Ely, NV to Salt Lake, this is well over 150 miles south of where SR-30 flows. How would it get from Ely, to Montello? Also IMO it is very inappropriate to knowingly use dead links for sources, which was done with the most recent additions.Dave (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the one of the two sources claimed which is valid, and I still don't believe it. Again, how and why would a trail destined for southern California go that far north that quickly? All other sources I've seen says the trail went from Grand Junction, to Salt Lake, to Ely. There is no logical reason why the route between those cities would curve that far north. The only explanation I see is the source is in error, or there were 2 iterations of the trail, or a massive realignment to the trail. Still I do not think it is appropriate to knowingly use a dead link. The whole point of a source is so the information is verifiable. how can anybody verify something that's sourced to a dead link? Dave (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. The Ogden Standard article provided clears things up. That is inconceivable that somebody would want to take this route to LA, this is at least a 300 mile detour if not more. I strongly suspect there was politics involved also, as the Arrowhead Trail would be a much better choice and would also avoid the salt marshes. I can't imagine anybody actually used this routing full length, having driven this route myself (although split among various road trips, never one consecutive trip)Dave (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently looking for mileages for I-29 in ND. Where in the North Dakota DOT site would we be able to find the logs containing the mileages for I-29? Dabby (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, me again. I'm not a deletionist by any means, but I find the category pages you created to be a bit misleading. You see, if a municipality renames itself from town to city, or borough to town, that's not quite the same thing as becoming defunct. Defunct municipalities no longer exist, hence the term defunct. I find the pages you created to actually be a bit ambiguous and unneeded, as defunct municipalites are listed with municipalites that still exist but have retitled themselves. I New Jersey, official municipal titles are irrelevant, but more importantly, the list doesn't specify which municipalities are defunct and which have retitled themselves. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to actually create a list then. I'm hoping to get "The Story of New Jersey's Civil Boundaries: 1606-1968" through interlibrary loan, so if that happens I definitely will make such a list. --NE220:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I passed it without really reading the section, but if its really necessary - comment on WT:GAN, maybe some kind of conclusion can be made there.Mitch32 19:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
To find control cities of specific highway what source to find. Because, i don't find a source list highways specific control cities. I'm trying to see if SR 19 (Rosemead Blvd.) actually have officially control cities, and what about SR 39? I know I can't make up cities, I do see some epople doing that.--FreewayguyMsgUSC23:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you meant by I have to ask Caltrans to get publish source? Do I have to e-mail them or call them? And have you ever been on any of California highways in your life? Can I use my LA-Orange County maps to find out?--FreewayguyMsgUSC23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should we keep it merge with I-405. The whole alignment San Diego Frwy is I-405, and i-5 is the southern half. Don't San Diego Frwy have similar history and landmarks with i-405?--FreewayguyMsgUSC00:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get the photos for the exit list? I checked AARoads; it only goes from the South Dakota state line to the vicinity of Fargo. I tried StarOwl's Highway Heaven to finish up the rest of the exit list. Although StarOwl's Highway Heaven was not a reliable source, it was only the best source I could find. What visual photos did you use to clean up the list? Dabby (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, your expansion looks good (as always). And when I saw the bluelinks for SR-900 and 901, I almost had a heart attack, never expecting those two to have articles (they don't even have shields), but then I saw they were only redirects. Well, a bluelink is a bluelink. :D CL — 07:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right, those two are one of the most obscure in the system. I don't see the point in them (besides blocking a railroad track from crossing it, why would they want to do that), they're not signed, they're not improved like a SR, and they encompass several different roads. That, and they have a ridiculously high number that is disproportionate from all the other routes (they might as well have named them State Route Mac and State Route Cheese for all I care). That, along with UDOT's poor signing practices and absolute refusal to overlay routes, makes my day. CL — 07:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is the only reason for them - to block a nuclear waste rail spur. Otherwise they are rather like the facility routes, which also encompass several roads. --NE207:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, I didn't know the railroad was to carry nuclear waste. Speaking of facility routes, they're really tough to expand. I just tried my hand at SR-320, there's is no way that article could ever get up to even C-class. CL — 07:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was my error - the article was not clear about the purpose of the rail line. As for the facility routes, the best solution might be a single page that lists them all. There are definitely some commonalities in how they are set up that can also be on that page. --NE207:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a list sounds best. That would sure take the load off of creating articles, I'm roughly estimating there are 10-15 routes that would fall under the list. I'll most likely get to it tomorrow (well, today) and see what I can do. CL — 07:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The completion list shows 31 plus some former ones. I'd leave at least some that exist outside facilities, like SR-313, as separate articles with mentions on the list. --NE207:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this over summer; the green guide displays I-110/SR-110 on Four level interchange. It will be better if we keep I-110 article just on harbor Frwy, and Pasadena Frwy only on its info.--FreewayguyMsgUSC16:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You never even been on Four Level Interchange; and what you mean by I'm forgetting aboout surface part in San Pedro. harbor and Pasadena Frwys I thoguht is distinctive; their histories is a little different. pasadena Frwy is built in the 1950s; Harbor Frwy is built 5 to 10 years later.--FreewayguyMsgUSC17:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have Harbor Frwy and Pasadena Frwy have distinct landmarks, Pasadena Frwy is alot older by 15 years, and it use to be part of US 66 when Harbor Frwy wasn't. i-110 ends at I-10. Harbor Frwy does end in Four Level Interchange.--FreewayguyMsgUSC19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does alternate name needs to be mention on every intersections. I've been on the 605 quite many times and Green plates outside just say I-605 north or South THru Traffic; from anothr Frwy interchange lie I-5 or 405 they just say I-605 Frwy North; South without control city. Now Green plates don't post alternate names so often; even now on Four Level Interchange from Hollywood (US 101) Frwy; they just say I-110 South to San pedro; SR-110 North to Pasadena, same as Santa Monica Frwy (I-10). On exit list does every highway need to place alternate name; like saying Century Frwy from i-405 exit list; outside I see it as i-105 West to LAX Airport; East to Norwalk. Can I go by what I see outside; or i cannot do that.--FreewayguyMsgUSC02:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Harbor Frwy made in 1964 while Pasadena Frwy start between 1938 and complete in 1953? This is what this site said, and 75.xxx.xxx wants both Harbor and Pasadena Frwys merge. They both suppose to be seperate page. Harbor Frwy has too much infos to merge with Pasadena Frwy. Gaffey St. I thoguht is delete part of SR 110. The RandmcNally map 2004 I have no longer have parts of SR 110.--FreewayguyMsgUSC16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's not important in the big scheme of things. I made the change as when I went through FAC last time I, and the others in line in front of me, were getting raked over the coals for consistency in the footnotes. Most of the article uses the cite templates, which uses a complete date. So I changed the others to match. IIRC an article was even failed because it was mixing the cite templates with the citation templates and/or Harvard citation templates (they are different and are for different writing styles). Dave (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NE2, I have recently installed Quantim GIS, but I am confused on how to make maps. Could you explain the software, after all you are an expert. --CG was here. 19:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer here is a joke why not just tell me the truth rather than giving me too many lies. All pages are restricted to IP address expect for talkpages. --75.47.194.16 (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say -- nice job on the Lund Highway article! Arcane stuff, but very interesting. (I drove that road as a kid in the 1960s, BTW, and most of it was just a narrow, single lane of asphalt. When I returned last summer, I saw that the county had milled the asphalt off of all but the first few miles, so the route is now largely a gravel road.) Cheers. Pitamakan (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the route log. And yeah, saw the message on WT:UTSH and downloaded it long ago. It's sitting right on my desktop - CL — 06:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you just move all of those company names to the transport names, particularly when you haven't ever had anything to do with them and a simple look at the page history would show that I have done everything to them? Good plays for WP:BOLD often make bad plays for Wikipedia:Consensus; please don't be rude. • Freechild'sup?00:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're trying to get Trump Tower Chicago ready for another go-around in a couple of weeks. I'm an idiot on image issues, so I don't know, but one of the images that people found acceptable at FAC was just deleted; do you have any opinion on this? See the argument at User_talk:TonyTheTiger. (feel free to reply here, I always watchlist.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problems with the current article, but I'm not very familiar with freedom of panorama and related issues about the tower itself. I'm not sure that Image:20080514 Trump Chicago Kiosk.JPG and Image:20080514 Trump Chicago Kiosk2.JPG need to be marked as unfree, since the focus of the photo is not the details of the map/ad but the kiosk itself and the fact that it contains an ad. Better safe than sorry, though, I guess. I believe that both kiosk images are appropriate given the discussion in the article.
Now about what you came here about: it seems to me that a cross section could be drawn from scratch, as long as the one in the PDF is only used as a general reference for what's on each floor. By the way, are 15 and 28 lobbies? --NE214:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NE2, thanks again for the image work you've done at FAC ... but can I ask you a favor? When I go back to a FAC to see if your concerns have been resolved, it's hard for me to easily locate your post, because you have a (decently) nondescript sig. Would you mind bolding the start of your commentary, for example:
Amusingly, I had a bit of trouble finding this section to reply :) Anyway, I'll do that if I do another batch. --NE200:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, NE2; Elcobbola used to review images (he got tired of the abuse), and I could easily scan for his BIG Red Signature to see if images had been checked :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this article is about harbor Frwy only. I know part of SR 110 belongs to Harbor Frwy; but Gaffey St. I thoguht is delete part of SR 110. LA-Orange County maps is simply outdate. Pasadena Frwy is on its own page; on i-110 and SR 110 we have no place to write about Pasadena Frwy.--FreewayguyCall?Fish18:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those two routes have sufficiently enough history to be a seperate page. harbor Frwy is commission at 1964 just like most California highways; Pasadena Frwy is alot older, commission in the 1940s. You know I post you the link photos on Four Level Interchange of Hollywood Frwy northbound. We had this conversation earlier.--FreewayguyCall?Fish18:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never seem to have a conversation with you. I try to figure out what you are saying and often fail. Please work on improving your English. --NE218:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i meant this photo Hollywood Frwy northbound. Those two routes have enough historical information to kept both a seperate page. I know part of Harbor Frwy is part of SR 110, Gaffey St. is delete part of SR 110. It use to exist of Gaffey St, now its gone from Gaffey St. About my English; its tough to work on; its tough for me to fix my English skills; because my vocab level is not that high. English is not an easy language to pick up though, and its not my fault.--FreewayguyCall?Fish18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does this means when Caltrans no lomger maintains it. I do have a limit on vocab levels and its not my fault. Does this matter what mapquest identifies and what I see outside from I-605 or 5?--FreewayguyCall?Fish20:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed on the WP:FAC page that you are a proficient image license reviewer. I am preparing to nominate Washington, D.C. for FA status in the next few weeks and would appreciate if you could review the images. If you have time to look at the article, there is an open peer review to make comments. Thank you for your help. Best, epicAdam (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:L'Enfant plan.jpg could use more sourcing information, but I'm sure it's public domain.
Image:DC 2003 SAMPLE.jpg looks sketchy. If it can be sourced, it would definitely be valid fair use, but I can't see it being public domain.
Hi. Thanks for taking a look at those. I found the original source at the Library of Congress for the L'Enfant engraving. It's definitely in the public domain.
As for the license plate, I can see the trouble with it. I believe the user who uploaded the image took a photograph of a license plate and altered it to say "SAMPLE"; I have not been able to find the exact image anywhere else. The DC government does not provide images of license plates, either. So as for the "source" it probably is this guy who uploaded his own altered photograph.
As for what I can tell about copyright laws concerning license plates, nothing about the license plates themselves are copyright-protected except non-trivial images and logos (like, on organization vanity plates). The only image on Image:DC 2003 SAMPLE.jpg is the D.C. flag, which is not eligible for copyright protection anyway. The slogan "Taxation Without Representation" is not eligible for copyright because the phrase is not stylized in any unique manner nor can governments apply for trademark protection. My only question would be, then, can I just replace the license info? If so, what do I replace it with? A fair-use rationale? Thanks again for your help. Best, epicAdam (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: The image of the license plate isn't eligible for copyright protection. According to the United States Copyright Office, names, slogans, and familiar symbols or designs are not eligible for copyright protection. So there it is. I put that information under the licensing rationale. Best, epicAdam (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should I-210 and SR-210 be kept merge. Originally; I see you put the purple tag on I-210 and SR-210 page after you fix the infobox, amy I ask why you want them merge. I-210 is alot older than SR 210. i thought and I-210 use to end at kellog Interchange near West Covina. The SR-210 was sign after 2003 when Caltrans eliminate part between old SR 30 and kellog Interchange, though the SR 30 still exist between I-215 and I-10 east of San Bern.--FreewayguyCall?Fish23:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i didn't put the purple tag on both I-210 and SR-210; I see you propse that merge. I just merge base on the tag. I just want to know why is that neccessairly.--FreewayguyCall?Fish23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the image would be better off removed? I was using the Japanese box art to show the significant difference, as well as the fact Mario was not shown to be the pilot until the game's international release. Would a better caption suffice instead?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with your outstanding concerns with the images on this article, which unfortunately has meant deleting one where I cannot establish a date of publication before 1923. But that's life. Thank you for your interest. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What possed you to move Fourteenth Street Bridge? There's no need for disambigation, as it's the only one on Wikipedia, or likely to be on Wikipedia.--BedfordPray16:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you tag the I-210 and SR-210 articles for merge? Don't those two routes have similar informations or like in alot of ways. I know SR-210 is made in the 2000s and the I-210 is like made in the 1960s. I know both i-210 and SR-210 is Foothill Frwy.--FreewayguyCall?Fish03:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit warring over this. First, Amity isn't notable: it has neither its own fire district, a school or road with the name, a developed center, or a ZIP code. Nor is it a CDP. It's real, but not everything real is notable. You need to explain its notability better than that. Second, you can't develop this beyond stub level ... believe me, I know this particular area. One of many onetime communities in New York that have simply left behind only a name someone used to fill blank space on a map. All Wikipedia needs to say about it can be said in one or two sentences at Warwick, New York. It can never be developed above stub level. It's better off as a redirect to the town article. I have defended you when you've been this difficult over at USRD ... please do not make me regret it enough to request protection. Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to WP:NPT, which is admittedly under consideration but makes pretty good sense to me. Will you stop explaining yourself with pithy generalities for once? I am really getting the impression you've not learned much from all three of the times you've been taken to RFC. You're engaing in the exact same behavior now.
Whence the notion they're a freight carrier? They may have hauled a little freight in the early days, but I don't think they do so anymore, and I don't know of any remaining traffic sources on line; NVF is moribund, and I can personally vouch for the fact the siding there hasn't been used in years. Choess (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, but we do have the AAR saying that they operate freight: [5] It's probably a technical distinction where they are required to provide freight service if any shows up. --NE219:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does SR 107 still exist or its eliminate?I still see it on CSC code and I still see the SR 107 post out passing it on i-405 Frwy. The Truck list site still shows Route 107, except they highlight it in gray in the column. I don't know what all these colors on Truck List is for, so I'm confuse if SR 107 is still maintain by Caltrans or not.--FreewayguyCall?Fish01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whats those colors like yellow, pink, and blue for? THose colors on California trucklist confuses me, and I can't even determine if route still exist or not. I thought SR 47 runs from SR 1 to like Sepulv. Blvd I thgouht. I thguoht the section between Sepulve. Blvd and SR 91 is eliminate. On CSC code they still say SR 47 runs from SR 1 to i-10. On mapquest they say exit on Alameda St (CA-47). This I'm not positive if SR 47 ends at Sepulv Blvd. or SR 91.--FreewayguyCall?Fish03:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't mapquest a trust source? The CSC code mark the SR 47 to I-10 is because it was originally plan to extend it to meet the I-10, only so they can make SR 1 a Freeway. Anything unbuilt yet still mark on CSC code. Can I count on mapquest or I cannot? I'm asking you because I thought you have been to California, and its better to ask and do them right than misunderstand them and make errors.--FreewayguyCall?Fish03:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can link to bugzilla requests with the syntax [[bugzilla:####]] where #### is the bugzilla number. I filed a duplicate of your bug about redirect fixer and section links, thinking you did not file a bug because you didn't link to one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to minimize confusion, since many people who post to the VP don't know how to file bugs, it might be better to consider posting the bug first, so you can link to it right away. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
takes me to "The Cincinnati Lancet and Clinic." Did you have a couple of browser windows open and copied the wrong add? Leaving this here since it's too minor a mistake of mine to clog an already-bloated thread with.
Oh, and while I'm here I might as well make this disclaimer: If anything I write comes across personal or nasty or biased, please let me know. This is a contentious area, and I often have problems with my "tone" not being read the way I intend.
Does SR 33 have any ohter names besides Ojai Freeway? I don't hear any other names of SR 33 besides Ojai Freeway, any Caltrans website don't mention other names besides ojai Frwy. i'll check the west coast highways, maybe I'll find out on that webiste. I believe I went on it last year I didn't pay attention ot those names since I was so new to those scenic routes, possibly concur of SR 41 or SR 46 the ones I know I was on.--FreewayguyCall?Fish21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found this on google maps; Its maricuopa Highway, and West Side Highway-thats northeast of I-5 I beleive. It has alot of other alternative names. Everytime I go on scenic route, I always have to scratch my mind like 10 times, to guess what highway I was on. And sometimes I have to go on major highway like SR 99 to find out what strange route I was on.--FreewayguyCall?Fish21:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new article (at 'Grant Street (Pittsburgh)' rather than the original 'Grant Street' location) seemed to contain even less context than the original with no sources, and any claim to notability seems stronger in the deleted article if anything. You are welcome to go ahead and create a new page, with references and claims to notability. It still seems to just say that it is a street and only gives normal (uncited) properties inherent to any street (length, name and termini) and a (significantly shorter) list of buildings. Ian¹³/t 21:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I am interested to see where you've changed Middlesbrough & Guisborough Railway to Middlesbrough and Guisborough Railway and to understand that it is in line with, erm, some policy or other. I'm not a railway expert or anything and I honestly don't want to get into 5,643 pages of policy docs on the ampersand so I just wanted to ask you - before I make a fool of myself trying to "helpfully" edit things! - whether the change from "&" to "and" is meant to be general, encompassing all the places where the M&G is mentioned, including captions and diagrams etc as well as text? Or is there some other rule regarding this, that I should be aware of before I start blundering around in Guisborough or Nunthorpe or whatever?! Sorry if I am being thick (or even megathick) but a word of guidance would be greatly appreciated! Cheers. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:PROD#How_it_works: "Only articles may be proposed for deletion. The only exceptions to this rule are pages in the User and User talk namespaces which may be proposed for deletion if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia.". Redirects aren't articles, and the deletion threshold is much higher. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's what actually happens. Redirects and articles are different, that's why we have different processes for deleting them (AFD and RFD). Redirects are not articles, PROD is used on articles. The term "mainspace or "articlespace" is never used. Arguing with me doesn't change that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I recently reviewed the article U.S. Route 89 in Utah for a GA promotion. The article was nominated by User:Splat5572, but seeing as this user is under accusation of being a sock, and his talk page is protected, and you seem to be the dominant editor of this article as of late, I figured I should notify you of its status. The article is very good; it is very close to achieving GA. However, there are some things I'd like to see taken care of; I've left comments on the article's review page. The nomination is currently on hold.
Obviously, since you didn't nominate the article, you have absolutely no obligation to improve it to GA status, and I realize and respect this. However, you have been editing this article liberally (a commendable effort, by the way), and I would hate to see this fine article failed due to a lazy nominator. If you would like to improve this article, your resolve is commendable, and if not, your motives are very sensible. Either way, I would appreciate a reply so that I may determine a course of action for this nomination. Thank you, Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 01:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the titling is confusing, but Maryland does it that way (not that it justifies it, but they made it an FL) and Admrboltz sure put in a lot of effort into it. Perhaps a change in name, but something that flows better than "List of Interstates and U.S. Routes in Utah". Not the best in titles, eh? CL — 05:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the split is necessary in the first place - there are five Interstates and only a few more U.S. Routes. --NE205:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with Ad then. For now, as we have two articles, something needs to be done. However, we can just leave it at the two disambiguation notes on the top of both pages. Whatever floats your boat - CL — 05:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is a prime example of having power in your hands! Thanks for the tip, I'll attempt to rectify the problem myself if that's okay, but by all means, if you'd like to do it, go ahead :) CL — 06:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a good idea. Too bad we don't have a robotic user that creates these types of articles with the blink of an eye. Another thing while I'm here: that map for List of numbered highways in Utah, is it out-of-date? It shows a U.S. highway on the extreme southwestern corner of the state; is this former US-91? CL — 06:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - that's US-91 (also near Parowan). It also has US-6 and US-89 before the overlaps with I-15 and I-70, and an extra stub of US-40 at the Jordanelle Reservoir. --NE206:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does Foothill Blvd. even use to be part of SR 210? You have a source? This is what you wrote on intersection tables. I was wondering why earlier you suggest SR 210 to be merge into I-210. Wasn't I-210 complete in 1971? or was I-210 once part of SR 210.--FreewayguyCall?Fish19:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even understand the link you post?It said nothing like SR 210 use to be Foothill Blvd. Thier numbers is strange and tough to understand. On Los Angeles-Orange County map 1963 plan whats the 9 (210)mean? And was I-210 formerly SR 210, because thats not what I've learnt.--FreewayguyCall?Fish23:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do understand it, and the dual system of legislative and sign routes before 1964. You apparently don't. That map is showing that what was Legislative Route 9 pre-1964 became Route 210. It was, for the record, signed as US 66. --NE223:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually what does Legislative Route pr 1964 mean? Was SR 30 also formerly sign as US 66 in past,but its sign as SR 210, and eventually will be I-210. This makes sense to keep I-210 and SR 210 seperate page, or keep both of them merge?--FreewayguyCall?Fish23:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look more closely at the SR 39 junction list. It says "former Route 210", not "former SR 210". This was Route 210 beginning in 1964, but was signed as US 66. When the freeway was completed, Route 210 was moved to it, and it was signed as I-210. --NE223:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Splatt7752 has been messing up the list by bringing the list from Eastshore Freeway to I-80 (CA). i don't know why the heck he does this. Should Eastshore Freeway be merge into i-80 because I doubt so. it seems like it have enouhg information to kept a seperate page like Golden State Freeway.--FreewayguyCall?Fish16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you answer questions for us. Splat5572's duplicating exit lists from Golden State, Santa Ana, San Bernar, Eastshore, Central, Hollywood, Ventura Freeways by putting the back on I-5, US-101, i-10, I-80 articles. The exit lists is display on thier own page, so they don't need to display on the provincal page.--FreewayguyCall?Fish17:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am too. I've war with 75.47 in the past, and usually his contributions does not conform to WP:MOS, and also he mess up Exit lists by adding possibly made-up stuff, or he sometimes does something to violate WP:ELG. Should I undo all the changes Splat5572 made to i-5, i-80 and US 101?THe portions seems to be duplicate to Golden State, Santa Ana, Eastshore, Bayshore, Hollywood, Ventura Freeways.--FreewayguyCall?Fish21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least i ask and clarify material when I'm not certain, but I try my best. Usually I just misunderstand informations, and thoguht wrong. I don't like to sutdy books or novels, this is why my English is still rusty. See my userpage for my infos.--FreewayguyCall?Fish01:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why you say my contributions can be a problem. Additional comments this is a place to comment. Mostly I assume good faith, once again I don't like to hang out on books, lots of vocab I still don't know. See my userpage to know more.--FreewayguyCall?Fish01:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well "Splat (talk)" was taken, so I had to put some number in my username when I registered this account. "5572" was the last four digits of my lucky ticket number, so I figured "5572" is easy to remember. (And please don't mind that periodically I retire an account, change my password so I can't get back in, and come back to Wiki under a new account. This is technically not against policy, and I have my reasons for doing this.) --Splat5572 (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On ARR reclassification from Class II to Class III?
The ARR article says:
"In 2006, the company earned a profit of $10.4 million on revenues of $148.9 million, $132.7 million of which was operating revenue."
49CFR1201 says: "1-1 Classification of carriers. (a) For purposes of accounting and reporting, carriers are grouped into the following three classes:
Class I: Carriers having annual carrier operating revenues of $250 million or more after applying the railroad revenue deflator formula shown in Note A.
Class II: Carriers having annual carrier operating revenues of less than $250 million but in excess of $20 million after applying the railroad revenue deflator formula shown in Note A.
Class III: Carriers having annual carrier operating revenues of $20 million or less after applying the railroad revenue deflator formula shown in Note A.
Note A: The railroad revenue deflator formula is based on the Railroad Freight Price Index developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The formula is as follows: Current Year's Revenues x (1991 Average Index/Current Year's Average Index)"
Since ARR operating revenue was $132.7 million (2006), what were the BLS "Railroad Freight Freight Price Index" for 1991 and current?
All the Class articles, Class Templates, and List of Class ... probably need updating. I will research GC.CA (Canada) when I get a chance and post any information on the Talk:Class I railroad page to consolidate things there. LeheckaG (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? They're close enough. Of course this is assuming New York actually does use the state name, something you can't be trusted on. --NE222:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one is not uploaded or requested by me. It was uplaoded a while ago by users who think it looks cool. New York actually uses neutral shields, look on the map on interstate-guide, New York is shaded in black, and also it is listed on the bottom of the page as states with few state shields. Since Commons is different from Wikipedia, deleting it just because it no logner specifies state-name specific is not a good reason.--FreewayguyCall?Fish22:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please remove some extra samples from Santa Ana, Golden State, Ventura, Central, and Bayshore Freeways. Those lists already existed on those pages, and there is no point it to have it show up on I-5, 80 and US 101 again or to duplicate an exit list again when it's not that needed. Wikipedia is not an mapquest, so agreed?--FreewayguyCall?Fish23:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Splat5572 (talk·contribs) continues to put the Santa Ana, Golden State Freeway back to exit list on I-5,and Hollywood, Ventura Freeways back to exit list on US 101, and Easthsore Freeway back to exit list on I-80. This tells me we don't no longer need exit lists on Golden State Freeway anymore. I'm not going to go through those wars again because I was blocked for 24 hours, and I just got out of it.
Splat and AL2TB and RFAR and Freewayguy and 75 IP and...
I'm not really following it either, but last I saw Splat (AL2TB's new name) was re-adding for instance Santa Ana Freeway exits to the I-5 exit list and Freewayguy was reverting, and both got blocked for 3RR/edit warring. It was also confirmed that Splat does not edit from 75.47.*, so he's either a skilled sockmaster (which I find doubtful) or a different person. --NE222:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UDOT's installed overhead signage on I-215 northbound prior to the Legacy Parkway exit. It appears as if they're going to sign LP with its logo (the logo on the upper left here) rather than an SR-67 shield. I have the image ready for uploading but I don't know what image tags I could put on it. Since you seem to be the copyright expert, do you have any advice as to what rules apply to this image? Thanks - CL — 01:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You removed the PROD from this article (and the South Junction), stating It's notable enough for a mention and redirect somewhere, Could you please supply some evidence of this notability? As far as I'm aware, these are just two ordinary junctions like any other in the country. Alternatively, if you think they can be redirected, please make some suggestions as to where. I intend to send these to AfD shortly unless these issues are resolved. See also the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Articles on Railway Junctions. — Tivedshambo (t/c)06:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said they were notable enough for a mention somewhere, and a redirect would obviously make sense. --NE207:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water. As they are not linked from anywhere, I see nowhere to redirect them to, except possibly somewhere like Bare Lane railway station, which would only create a circular link in any case. If you can come up[ with a valid reason to keep these articles, feel free to place your comments at the AfD. — Tivedshambo (t/c)07:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I created the redirects per requests by the IP, working backwards through the list, and therefore saw your comment last. As a Brit, I don't really know how referred to the roads are as "freeway" - if you want, I'll just tag them with CSD G7 if you really object to their existence. - Toon0517:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It originally started out waaay to the south as two parallel tracks of the UP and WP (the latter was also known as the Feather River Route). It later became a double-track joint line, and the UP took over the WP in 1983. Due to expansion of Kennecott's tailings pond, it's been moved to the north twice (the latter is not shown on the map but is on aerials). It's now the UP's Lynndyl Subdivision.
Why you removed the major rivers from exit list? The previous problem is background colours when the colspan used to be shaded in gum blue. Should the body waters be mentioned on exit list or not? I thought we just can't use background colors such as gum blue.--FreewayguyCall?Fish23:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archieve what to check? I don't see it. And should parking and rest areas also belongs on exit list?When I looked on talkpage, the ELG warning is still marked.--FreewayguyCall?Fish00:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
diff "They don't actually operate in Pennsylvania." My understanding is that they do: [8] "Ohio Central Pittsburgh Lines, THE PITTSBURGH & OHIO CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, (P&OC): Commenced operation in 2000 on 43 miles of line formerly owned and operated by the Pittsburgh Industrial Railroad. The P&OC Main Line extends from Neville Island on the Ohio River near Pittsburgh to Arden, Pennsylvania with branches to Esplen and Armstrong Mills." At least one other line of theirs operates in Pennsylvania. Is this not what's meant for that category? Additionally, I'd be interested in your input on whether or not the various short lines should be merged into the main Ohio Central article. --Rkitko(talk)01:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this photo be deleted if I specify non-commercial? Please point me to the WP rule that requires it to be available for commercial use. I uploaded this 4 years ago and it has never been questioned before. --Robbie Giles (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox road/GA/shield BL Template:Infobox road/GA/shield BS are for Interstate Business and Template:Infobox road/GA/shield SR-Bus are for Georgia State Route Business are missing and i urge you to add it now because it is showing it on Interstate 75 in Georgia and Interstate 575. --75.47.129.198 (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
.svg)
![[7]](http://cahighways.org/maps/1963renumber.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
