Route11, I appreciate your enthusiasm and your help on the Ohio project, creating pages for OH 201 and OH 222. However, including only an introduction and a JCT list doesn't do much good. That adds to the stub tally. You need to include either a History or Route Description, at minimum, along with the JCT list for it to be a Start-Class, which is the absolute miminum class I work toward when I create new route articles. For it to be even a C-class, it has to have all of the RD, History and JCT list. So, again, while I appreciate your enthusiasm, and your help, I ask that you put more effort into these, and not go about rating an article to a class that it is not qualified to be. Thank you very much. DanTheMan474 (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, we don't put a footnote in the header to a section. That breaks stuff. Footnotes come at the end of the text they support, so they should appear at the end of a paragraph or sentence. And when you do add information to an article, please make sure that you are writing it in your own words and not copying another website. Imzadi 1979→00:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't directly paste material off websites into articles, like you did on Ohio State Route 201 and Ohio State Route 222. That's a violation of copyright, and it will be removed on sight by other editors, as I have. It's not enough to just credit the website as a source. You need to at least make an attempt to present the information in a different form than the exact language used. Also, the site you used is not a reliable source so it shouldn't be used in the first place. — PCB00:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're creating more stubs again, which presents a slight problem with respect to overall project article quality. If you have the ability to, would you please be able to put more effort into any new pages you created, so they are at least Start-Class? History sections are not that difficult to put together, given the sourcing ODOT provides. It would be more greatly appreciated if you would halt creating stub articles for the time being, and focus on improving the quality of existing articles, or of the stubs that you created, doing so within WP:USRD guidelines. If you do feel the need to create further articles, please put more effort into them. Thank you. DanTheMan474 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, you can write a full route description using the current state map and google maps and use the SLDs to create a mileposted junction list. If the SLDs, which are in PDF format, won't open on your computer, you can still create the tables and ask another project member to fill in the details. Imzadi 1979→00:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you're going to create new pages, you have to do it in the format of Ohio State Route 197, Ohio State Route 288, and so on. History sections must be in paragraph format, not a list. Also, you cannot use the John Simpson site as a source, as it is severely outdated and unreliable. JCT lists and infobox contents must be expressed in south-to-north or east-to-west format. The ODOT SLD source for mileages should be linked directly to the PDF file identifying that information. DanTheMan474 (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder: You can't just copy-paste from another article. You've got text errors on several of your recently edited pages, for example, that list the route from the page that you copied the text from. These need to be corrected, if another editor doesn't get to them first. You also have to check your source formatting, and make sure all necessary information, and the correct date, are included. DanTheMan474 (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm also going to ask that you please not assess any articles above Stub-Class at this time until myself or one of the other editors can check out the page to determine if it is viable to upgrade to a Start or higher. Even if you have the History and JCT list up there, please keep it as a Stub until it's reviewed. This is for quality and consistency sake. Thank you. DanTheMan474 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, even though this is your talk page, please sign your posts so those of us who are watching this page know where you stop talking. Signing is easy, just type ~~~~ (4 tildes). Thanks. –Fredddie™00:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You erred again, this time in creating the OH 189 page. First of all, please do not rate your own pages yet...your work is not of C-Class quality, it is of Start-Class quality. Next, you need to write a complete introduction with termini information, not just a one-sentence "here it is" type statement. I request again that you please not assess any articles without contacting either myself or another USRD editor first. Thank you for your cooperation. DanTheMan474 (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, Dan, Route11 didn't write the lead section on SR 189 that you found. It was added by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk·contribs) who also added the categories. Fredddie was the one that assessed the article as a C as well. The junction list needs to be examined, because an IP editor reversed its direction and mileages, but somehow I'm thinking it was right the first time. Imzadi 1979→06:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not rate the page, Imzadi 1979 is right. User:Fredddie rated the article as a c-class. SR11 (talk)
Thanks for letting me know, Imzadi1979. That said, that is in fact how I'm doing all my "filler" Route Descriptions, as well, where I'm going to come back at a later time and write a full description. However, I'm only doing those as placeholders. I can't justify that as an acceptable RD. If I did, Ohio would have several dozen C-Class articles right now. Likewise, the intro needs to have some substance to it, it can't be one sentence long, regardless of who is doing that. Route11, sorry about jumping to a conclusion. However, the article is a Start-Class until a more thorough RD can be completed. DanTheMan474 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
I'm troubled by your recent actions with this map.
Now we have two seemingly identical maps in different formats, one in the superior SVG format and one in the less-appropriate PNG format. The trouble is, they aren't identical, and the updated version is in a less-preferred format.
This type of file is best created as an SVG, and maintained as an SVG. Vector graphics are much more compact, and they scale to different sizes better than PNG.
At infobox sizes, which is where the map was in use, the changes you made are not visible.
Lastly, by uploading it under a new name, all of the various foreign-language Wikipedia articles using the old map are... still using the old map. If you had just overwritten the SVG with an updated SVG on Wikimedia Commons, every article on every edition of Wikipedia using the map would have been updated with no further editing as the servers recache the file.
If you couldn't save an update as an SVG, you should have requested someone else to make the update. I have restored the previous map to the articles. This isn't the first time I've commented on your map update skills and your questionable ethics regarding revising and relicensing maps created by others, and I hope it's the last time. Imzadi 1979→23:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
