User talk:Imzadi1979/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Congrats

Congratulations on the FA for Capitol Loop. I was glad to help in a small way. Finetooth (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		To Imzadi 1979, for carefully shepherding Capitol Loop to FA. The article was incredibly well-written and sets a high standard for other road articles to live up to. Great work! Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on your work successfully attaining Featured Portal status, for Portal:U.S. Roads. Thank you for your work on portals on Wikipedia! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well done on the promotion, and I'm delighted to see that you're still making improvements even after it's got the star. I can't claim any credit for the idea, but I'm glad you found it useful. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 00:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you inspired it! ;) Imzadi 1979 → 00:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats, and thanks for participating in the Speculative fiction portal discussion, too. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Capitol Loop.

Great work! LittleMountain5 22:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC image reviews

Thanks for helping out at FAC! Please review Elcobbola's comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alboin/archive1. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I currently have an FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aquaria (video game)/archive1 - that SandyGeorgia has requested that I get an image review for. Could I trouble you to take a look? Thank you very much! --PresN 02:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Imzadi1979, did you have a chance to review the image concerns at the Alboin article? I'm concerned that Elcobbola found so many issues after you gave image clearance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I was only stating what was stated on the image description pages, which was PD or CC licenses. No more, no less. Imzadi 1979 → 04:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know-- the problem is that nominators are assuming this means a complete image review has been done and the article meets crit. 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, we're pretty sure we've solved Haruna's image issues. Could you check back in at the FAC page to make sure? Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for the message-RFD (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Michigan highway

Belated happy birthday. You have correctly stated the policy for naming articles. However, when writing prose in a University article, "Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." and "Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence." (WP:MOS) Many readers have no idea what "M-45" means, so the article should spell out the abbreviation. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand one key point: M-45 is the full name. It is not an abbreviation. The "M" portion of the number is integral to the name/number, and not an abbreviation for anything else. It is no less correct to call it "Michigan Highway 45", "State Highway 45", "State Route 45", etc as that all omits the "M" (which is on the signs) and substitutes an inaccurate and non-existant "extended name" where one doesn't exist. All of those would be WP:OR as the name is just M-45, nothing more and nothing less. Imzadi 1979 → 21:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A1 (Croatia) GA review

Hi! Thank you for your review of the A1 (Croatia) GAN. Your comments have been very helpful and clear.

There are, however, few questions that I'd like to ask:
1. The Exit list header row is colored to match the motorway shield background. That color is universal in Croatia and I thought that it might be possible to model the header of the table on the UK standard (except there is blue background, matching UK motorway shield color). Also, all other Croatian motorway articles feature the same color scheme. Furthermore, the header text is changed to match the UK model and not to repeat the section head. Do you think that might represent an appropriate solution?
2. As far as the column span is concerned for the significant structures specified by the RJL, the information contained in the 'notes' column is not really necessary as it is found either in the main text or in articles on the structure themselves and it is, naturally, possible to span the 'name' all the way to the 'notes'. I have no problem with that. On the other hand, I am reluctant to span that further into the 'exit' column since that would destroy vertical alignment of the items found under 'name'. I agree that there can be no exit number for a tunnel or a bridge, but would it be agreeable to merge 'km' and 'exit' in those cases (and also in case of rest areas) and to merge 'name', 'destination' and 'notes' separately?

Unfortunately no reliable information on chainage of major structures (and some rest areas) is avalable. However, I'll be sure to add those later on if they turn up somewhere. Once again, thanks for your effort!--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Two quick things.

1. The UK doesn't use a marker to indicate status on roadways, only color and the M/A/B/C# designation, which is why they asked for the colored headers. If a A# transitions to a A#(M) roadway and becomes a motorway, there will be an intermediate blue header added in the middle of the table. If the A# transitions from primary (yellow text on green) to secondary (black text on white), or vice versa, that would also get the intermediate header. Those headers will match the change in sign color along the roadway. That's why MOS:RJL requires that the UK color key carry an additional line for the three colors (blue, green, white) to denote status in addition to the pale green, pink, orange and grey for junction information. Any additional color schemes need to be proposed and approved at WT:RJL and can added to the color key template, {{[tl|legendRJL}}.
2. Sorry, I should have said that when the rows in the table are set to span multiple columns, they're usually done by setting |colspan=# align=center|. Originally they were set to !colspan=#| which produced centered, bold text but that's not appropriate per other parts of the MOS. You'll find that many of the US articles still have the older, bolded format but as articles are updated, that is being fixed, conversion/color keys added, and other updates from the MOS:RJL overhaul from earlier this year are being implemented. There are more changes in the works for RJLs in articles over accessibility concerns, which is why for Michigan I use {{MIint}}, {{MIexit}} and their kin to create the tables. Then I've just updated the templates to roll changes out to 218 articles for Michigan, the last being the conversion key and the scope=col attribute to the column labels. That attribute allows a screen reader to repeat the name of the column when reading each row of the column, change from the section of the MOS on Accessibility.

A side note, WP:UKRD, in my observation, is not always the best model to follow on updated style practices. They will discuss a change on the project talk page, or an article's talk page, achieve consensus to make a change, and then never roll it out to many articles. Most of their articles do not have distance columns added to their junction tables, let alone color keys, even though when I created the color key template it was created with the UK key in place. They've also decided to remove the black background on the table's column header row. This was decided at on Talk:M25 motorway because it makes any footnotes hard to see, and the default location to reference the source for distance (milepost) data is the km or Mile column, the default location to reference exit/junction numbers has become the top of that column, etc. Most articles, including their lone Featured Article, M62 motorway#Route, are using old practices from before this year, even though the project consensus has changed. LIterally it seems like no one ever bothers to update the articles. The only reason the infoboxes have been changed on their motorway articles is that a non-UKRD editors have done the actual changes. Otherwise the UK wouldn't get them all changed until sometime in 2015 at their normal pace.

I'm not saying that the US project as a whole is better at updating articles, because that's not true either. We have over 10,000 highway articles in the US, many of which are still stubs, and even some of the older GAs and FAs aren't as up to date on the MOS:RJL changes from this year, but that's being corrected. When the conversion key was added to the requirements, I spent about two hours running through all 218 Michigan articles. Since the color key template was updated, and most of the Michigan articles use at least the pale green concurrency color, and most of the freeways have partial access interchanges with the pale red/pink color, I just had to add {{jctbtm}} to the bottom of the tables on the other articles.

Anyways, I meant to make this quick, and your eyes are probably glazing over. If you have any questions, let me know. Most of the active WP:HWY members also frequent an IRC channel, instructions are at WP:HWY/IRC. Imzadi 1979 → 19:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, If I understood correctly, the colored header is a dealbreaker in this case unless approved ahead at WT:RJL and column spanning has to be addressed (plus no boldface text)?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. I'm actually switching up {{legendRJL}} right now to add a |country= parameter in place of the former, unused uk= parameter. Imzadi 1979 → 19:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Portal peer review

As you've been through the mill of getting a portal to Featured status recently, if you got a chance to look in at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Law of England and Wales/archive1 some time in the next couple of weeks, that would be lovely. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Michigan_basketball_overload.2C_part_2

Based on your prior comments at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_September_14, you may be interested/willing to approve the new multis at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Michigan_basketball_overload.2C_part_2. Please consider doing so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

M-152 (Michigan highway)

I have put M-152 (Michigan highway) on hold. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please consider my suggested wording change. Racepacket (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for M-66 (Michigan highway)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

PR-10

If we are both refereing to teh same WP:WIABCA #2, it states that "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing." This is quite generic, can you be more specific? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

An obvious omission: a junction table with locations, distances, destinations and an explanatory notes required. There two cases that a highway article doesn't get a junction list table. The first is when you have an article like U.S. Route 41, which is a "national-detail" covering the highway from Florida to Michigan. In that case, U.S. Route 41 in Michigan gets the full table of junctions for Michigan, and the parent article gets a summary as a bulleted list. The second case is where the only "major intersections" to be included would be the termini, and even then the table is usually included to be complete and consistent. Including the table in that case also has the side benefit that the terminal distance is the length of the roadway, including that statistic in the body of the article instead of just leaving it in the lead and infobox. Neither of these cases apply because PR-10 is not an interstate/interterritorial roadway with child articles that cover the junctions elsewhere in greater detail. It has intermediate major junctions as well, so it does not have a case to leave off a table for a lack of junctions. In either case, this is a major omission of information to the article, as fully 1/3 of the article's sections is not really developed. In addition, PR-10 fails WIABCA #4 because it is not " reasonably well-written." In either case, the article is not B-Class. Imzadi 1979 → 22:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am willing to work on what needs to be done to rectify the problem, so how about if instead of detailing the exceptions which, despite your good intentions, won't help me proceed anyway since they don't apply in this case as you had already stated earlier, so how about if you instead could recommend an easy to follow sample (B-class) road article that I could follow as an example? I'd appreciate that a lot. My brain works better with examples. Hope you can understand.

One note though. You are now also adding #4 which you hadn't listed as being an issue for B-class before. Why is this? If there are too many issues I am willing to work on it -no- more as I have other stuff that better fits my interests. Hope you can understand. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

First off, I deal more with USRD's C/B-Class criteria, but with WP:WIABCA, failing one of the list is sufficient to deny B-Class, thus I only needed to cite #2 in my edit summary for brevity. You've asked for a more detailed explanation, and I have provided it. As for a good example, pick out any of the many Category:B-Class U.S. road transport articles and you'll find 703 examples. Look for a state highway that's of similar length to PR-10, as some really short highways have B-Class articles that might be C-Class for longer highways. Also remember that the amount of history will vary between highways. Capitol Loop, a 2-mile long highway has a Featured Article that has lots of history for its 20 years, but M-67 (Michigan highway) has existed since 1919 without many events that effect it. (We normally leave routine maintenance like repaving, resigning, repainting out of the history as every highway gets repaved, resigned or repainted regularly.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I can create the junction table to take care of number 2. However, I disagree with your (#4) asseeement that the article is not well written in terms of prose. That is a matter of personal choice: there is absolutely nothing wrong with the prose in the article. Even if there was, an article is not expected to approximate perfection to qualify for B class. imo, you are expecting too much for a B-class article. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

All assessments are subjective to some degree. WP:WIABCA #4 states: "The article is reasonably well-written." I say it is not. The short answer is not to whine about the criteria; the answer is to fix the article to meet or exceed the criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The prose needs work. If you look at the route description, you see "PR-10 starts PR-5506, near PR-1 at Mercedita Airport." How does a road start another road? Secondly, you overuse the word "crosses" in the route description. Unclear writing and overuse of certain words are two clear indicators that the prose needs work. --Rschen7754 21:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for U.S. Route 2 in Michigan

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Table guidelines and highway articles

Follow-up after your question about rwospan/colspan at the accessibility manual of style. See the consensus we reached at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial#Avoiding rowspan/colspan. In short, this is a bonus guideline. You can conform to it, but it's not a top priority. So it's basically you own choice. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway

You'll notice I've made some big edits at above and provided some references. Wonder if you wouldn't mind to have a look, and if possible piggy-back the repetivitive ones. Thought that would have happened with the formatting, but doesn't seem to be working. Thanks for you help with this and other stuff to keep the article in FA shape.Djflem (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

M-20

I'm back and have put the article on hold. Racepacket (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Two more things. Racepacket (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. 1) Check for extra spaces, particularly in front of commas, 2) US Freeway, 3) proposed redesignation. Racepacket (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • 1&2, typos fixed. 3 is independently unsupportable by reliable sources. Imzadi 1979 → 10:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for M-6 (Michigan highway)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

M-6

I have placed the GA review on hold. Racepacket (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• I understand about your limited access. The only remaining issue is the MDOT role in listing M-6 on the NHS. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Baxter Boulevard

Just to let you know, an article you nominated for AfD in July (Baxter Boulevard) is very notable. It is on the National Register of Historic Places, which was easily findable by checking what linked to the page. Also, a search of Google Books and a plain Google search turned up multiple reliable sources relating to the 100+ year old history of the public park and roadway. Check them out. Moreover, as a primary editor on the page, the uploader of the image and one of two most recent editors of the page prior to the AfD, I would have appreciated being notified. I've redirected the page to Back Cove, Portland, Maine for now.--TM 05:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway FAR

Hi Imzadi - Would you mind revisiting WP:Featured article review/Pulaski Skyway/archive1 and checking to see if your concerns have been resolved and then making either a keep or delist declaration in the FARC section? Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of European American and White American on U.S. Supreme Court pages

Greetings! In light of your previous work on these articles, please weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States#Discussion of use of European American and White American on this page. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviations in captions

What Wikipedia guideline proscibes the use of abbreviations in captions? The need for brevity in captions is so obvious to me that I can't imagine what it would be.

In general, we just haven't abbreviated road names, preferring to spell out Road, Avenue, Boulevard, Street, etc in the highway articles. That's all. There is no guideline either way, but if you look through most of the Michigan highway articles, those words are spelled in full each time generally. Imzadi 1979 → 03:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Project banners

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I think I found a USRT banner on one NY street article, and then made the mistake of extrapolating from there. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Washington_State_Route_22

Care to reassess this? --Admrboltz (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And 223 (working through all the child routes actually... go destubbing!) --Admrboltz (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo (2nd nomination)

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

M-52

I don't dispute your move of my photo. I believe your intention was to have the photo in only one location. The photo still appears in the junction list, which I don't think you intended. Dwight Burdette 03:02, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dustbin Baby (film)/archive2

Hey, I'm contacting you because you participated in the last FAC. I have renominated Dustbin Baby (film) for featured article status, and I was wondering if you wanted to take another look. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Titles of sources

It is our duty as editors to list sources verbatim. If the source chooses only to capitalize the first letter of a title, as is common in news stories on the internet, such as the sources here, then we must list it the same way. (I checked Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), but that only refers to titles of WP articles, not titles of external material). Similarly, the title from MDOT in the St. Joseph Valley Parkway (see here) should have retained the hyphen between "US" and "31" because that's the way MDOT created the title. It is not our job to retroactively apply WP standards to entities which are independent of WP.

I will revert both unless given evidence otherwise. Mapsax (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually we are allowed to make such minor changes, and in fact we are encouraged to do so by the Manual of Style. The first concerns capitalization, and if you read MOS:CAPS for how to format titles, it specified Title Case, not Sentence case. As for the hyphen, we are supposed to be internally consistent in hyphen and dash usage per MOS:DASH. I can explain more and further when I get my DSL connected here in a short while and I'm not relying on my iPhone to get online, like I am when I'm not at the library. Imzadi 1979 → 19:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm online now with my laptop. MOS:CAPS contains a section on reducing ALL CAPS to other case styles. Later on it specifies how to handle composition titles which says to do what I did. As for the hyphens, see WP:Manual of Style#Internal consistency. Minor stylistic changes are allowed. In fact, it is actually a good idea to correct minor spelling errors and other stylistic inconsistencies even when dealing with quoted material, unless there is a good reason to leave things unaltered. In fact, MOS:QUOTE specifies: "Although the requirement of minimal change is strict, a few purely typographical elements of quoted text should be conformed to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment." In short, what I did is the correct way to deal with such things on the English Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 21:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Louisiana Highway 975

-- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in this

Im not trying to sway you into anything you dont want to do but the Metabanner template can support your project. Here is what someone else already started:banner but it still need some work. They also said they could probably support the inline format you use if you want to keep it. Just wanted to let you know in case you were interested. --Kumioko (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but we've said before that we would only change if the output of the new was identical to the old. As has been shown in the past though, that was not possible. If it is possible in the future, we'll take it under advisement then.

Now, I'm willing to work with people on any level of the project, and I'm willing to help WP:WPUSA where I can, but don't take that level of support and collaboration as any indication I want to merge USRD into another project. We have a very functional project. The maps our MTF generates are judged as "too professional" at PR or FAC and other editors want to know where we're stealing them from. (That's a good thing, since it means we can generate very professional looking content.) We run a portal that's now a Featured Portal, that unlike most of the Featured Portals, actually gets a monthly update. (Most of them are set up to randomly select a new article/photo/DYK set each time the portal is loaded. The only thing we randomized is which state's highway marker is in the introduction box.) We have an A-Class Review process that might be slow but it is successful. Any article from the project nominated at FAC that has been promoted through ACR has passed FAC. Yes, some have required second nominations for procedural reasons, but the success rate is there. We have and keep all of our articles assessed, and we track that assessment through a statistic called Wikiwork that is displayed on our assessment table. Call it pride, but USRD doesn't need to be told how to run by others who aren't interested in working within the project. That's the biggest reason why we as a group detest outsiders telling us how to do things like how to word language on a template or what to call a template.

I see that the discussion over MILHIST's template basically failed to gain any level of support for renaming it. WP:TROP's template doesn't use the metatemplate either. Standardization is fine, trust me, I know. Over the last year, we merged around 50 infobox templates' functionality into {{infobox road}}. There is only one remaining country-specific highway infobox template left. Unlike your standardization push though, these templates were visible to the public, wildly divergent in layout and most of them had problems related to accessibility concerns. Several of them were frankly, ugly. Of course beauty is subjective, but the colors in some were badly chosen and distracted attention away from the article. Others employed layout features that didn't work on all browsers. The Iranian templates used some coding that produced rounded corners. It looked fine under Firefox, but I use Safari where the corners weren't rounded and the graphical elements just plain didn't line up. Yes, I know that your metatemplate standardized the layout of project banners, but unlike the infobox, those banners are on the talk pages where the general readership doesn't venture often. Our template looks just fine, it works just fine and it's named just fine. The reasons given for renaming the template fall apart. Unless you're sending a bot across 13,800+ articles to rename the transclusions, you'll derive no additional benefit that the {{WikiProject U.S. Roads}} redirect does not already provide. Moving the template to a new location doesn't change the coding on the talk pages, which would make bot or AWB editing easier. There's very little reason for bots or AWB to be editing the talk page banners except on a USRD-specific process.

I've also seen where the metatemplate actually caused problems that our template avoided. Earlier this year, the metatemplate was updated reflecting a change in B-Class assessments. If all of the B-Class criteria weren't checked off as "yes", the article was downgraded to C-Class automatically. One change flooded the WP1.0 bot and the job queue by changing article assessments, which are the purview of the projects, without the projects making the changes. Our project was spared this change, which would have radically altered several of our processes because we have separate assessment criteria for B-Class and lower. These criteria are compatible with the Wiki-wide criteria, but are actually more stringent. Would a bot looking for our template at a standardized location attempt to override our project assessment criteria and downgrade all of our B-Class articles to C-Class in one swoop? We have a fully functional project that has its own processes and criteria that aren't incompatible with Wikipedia policies. That's why we work to maintain that, rather than blindly implementing decisions from outside of the project, which may or may not have wide consensus.

If you have other avenues of cross-collaboration you'd like to pursue, I'm open to hearing about them. I'm willing to work with others, and I know that goes for the rest of the project. We just have years of history of being told want to do even though we have our own record of success that works just fine. It's not a walled garden; it's just a different way of doing things that works and works within Wikipedia policy. Imzadi 1979 → 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

M-59 (Michigan highway)

Concerning your edit here, I believe it's better to clarify in which county Howell Township is located in the first sentence, especially since we are describing the terminus of the route. What do you think? --Thomprod (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If there were more than one Howell Township in the state, I would agree. Since there is a city of the same name that would be labeled on any map right next door, I think that it's a bit redundant. If a reader is truly confused as to the location of Howell Township, they can click the wikilink. Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference templates

Imzadi, You've been leading by example, and I am being guilted into adopting citation templates. Is there an easier way to use them? Less cumbersome? Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

I use them primarily because no matter what order I format the parameters, I get consistent results. I tend to copy/paste the information off the online source, so it might be pasted in a different order, but it always outputs the same.

The easiest way I know is to learn the standard set of template names and parameter names. They're quite consistent My rules of thumb are:

• {{cite web}} for webpage-only content
• {{cite book}} for books available in print, even if an online or e-book edition is being cited
• {{cite news}} for newspaper articles (and TV station articles) that would also appear in the print edition (reported in the news broadcast)
• {{cite journal}} for magazines and scientific journals, even if hosted online
• {{cite map}} for maps, even if an electronic edition (There are {{google maps}}, {{yahoo maps}} and {{bing maps}} to shortcut the information for those online maps.)
• {{cite press release}} for press releases, even if hosted online
• There are others as well for things like video or audio recordings.

When it comes to parameters:

• |lastn= |firstn= for author names. If there are multiple authors, add a number in place of the n to separate them out. If there is only one, drop the number.
• |author= if the author is an organization, which is rare. I only use organizations as an author if the publisher is different and the organization is explicitly credited as an author
• |title= for the title of the article, map, press release, web page or book. Convert the title to Title Case.
• |work= the name of the website (which isn't the URL and should be different from the publisher), the name of the newspaper, etc.
• |publisher= the company that publishes the content. For most newspapers, this isn't really needed, but this is where to put the TV or radio station's call letters. (I don't use the station's branding as outside of their viewing/listening area, no one knows who "9&10 News" would be, but they'd understand WWTV-TV.)
• |location= the location, if known, of the source. I skip this if the location is listed in the newspaper's name. I usually skip this on state government sources since the assumption would be that it was published in the state capital. (Sometimes with DOT sources, the location is the district office because the source only pertains to a district.)
• |date= The date of publication. Similarly, |year= if only the year is known. Bots will fix this during other edits if you use the "wrong" one.
• |page= |pages= use one or the other but not both. The former uses "p. #" as the output, and the latter uses "pp. #" instead. If you have a range of pages, use an en dash (–) as the separator, not a hyphen (-).
• |accessdate= for the date you accessed the source, if an online link is provided.
• |url= if there is a link to the source, feel free to add it. Except for webpages though, this is usually quite optional.
• |format= this is a multipurpose parameter. If the URL links to a PDF, you should indicate that. Same for anything like an Excel file, a Word document, etc. Also, if a subscription is required, I list "Subscription required" to alert readers that they might have to pay to get the article.
• |archiveurl= |archivedate= are useful if the webpage is no longer accessible through the website, but it is hosted at http://www.archive.org/ or another site. In that case, use the original URL in the |url= parameter
• The last parameters I use are things like |isbn= |issn= and the like. ISBNs are standard numbers for books, and ISSNs are used on some journals and magazines. If you can provide one of these, the reader will get link to a search page. From there, he can click to find the book in the WorldCat library catalog search, Amazon or Google Books, among other options.

All of the different templates list their full parameters in their documentation. {{cite book}} has parameters for chapters and the URL of a chapter as well as things like editors, editions, new publication dates, etc. {{cite map}} has parameters for sections and insets on a map, which would be like a page number in book or magazine. Basically, add all of the known information about a source to the template. Some things won't be known and must be skipped. If you can find the data on the source, try to. Imzadi 1979 → 16:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I know some editors don't like them or don't use them, but for me it's been simple. When I was in school, I had to look up in my Writer's Inc reference book to see how to format bibliography entries for my school papers. With the templates, I just supply the information and the template formats it for me. If a piece of information is missing, it knows how to reformat the output to accommodate it. (If an author is given, the date/year information appears in parentheses before the title information. If there isn't an author, the year is moved later so that the citation starts with the title.) When I was doing the Grand Rapids Press articles out of my library's Newsbank archive to list on the UP article talk page, I copied and pasted the information from the head of the article. That meant that the author was pasted in after the article title, but the template rearranged my data to the proper output. Imzadi 1979 → 16:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In law school (Harvard blue book) and in 37 years of the practice of law, I had to use various forms of citations. I am well familiar with the regimen, but have not wanted to internalize a new system. But I will prove that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" is wrong. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

The Reftools button is your friend! I use it religiously, but I haven't quite memorized the syntax like Imzadi1979 has. –Fredddie™ 21:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Fredddie. I try to learn something every day. You both have been very helpful in your tutelage. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

Interstate 375 Business (Detroit, Michigan)

Hey, your Michigan State Highways page and the page for Interstate 375 Business (Detroit, Michigan) have contradicting distances. And really? A 3di bus spur? Admrboltz (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really. Jefferson Avenue between the end of M-10 and the start of I-375 is BS I-375. Thanks for catching that, the BS I-375 page has the correct measurement. Imzadi 1979 → 23:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wyoming, Michigan

Thanks for the help in doing the cites. I used the reference guide given in the editing box but it is quite short on good info. I much prefer your style so thanks for giving me the ability to cite better. As a resident of the city I like to get that page looking better but have not made the trip into the library to talk to the historical commission. I like to see if they could provide some good help but with a lot of them of the older type I am unsure how much they can provide. Not to mention the aspect that some of their work has been used in book format the usage of said material seems tricky at best. In any case thanks for your support. BTW if you come across any photos of 28th street during the 1960's it would be awesome or even before that for the history section along with Division Ave. I like to put up a few small pics of those places with another of the current appearance of the DDA.

A second thought came up to me is the aspect of BRT. I am leaning on eliminating the BRT section as I am unsure when the BRT vote will occur and since the federal funds to start it are hinged on getting operations funding decided by 2012 it seems until that gets resolved their is no point in having it listed. If you any thoughts on this feel free to give me a holler. Mihsfbstadium (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

Hey, I am trying to add to the bottom of Washington State Route 22 and wanted to know if you thought User:Admrboltz/SR 22 Alt 1 or User:Admrboltz/SR 22 Alt 2 would work better. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but I'd pick #2 hands down. –Fredddie™ 20:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Butt in, but I'll still agree with you. #2 is much better. Imzadi 1979 → 20:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, going with Alt 2 --Admrboltz (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

GAR

An article that you have been involved in editing, Interstate 375 (Michigan) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Barber's pole

Still screwing around trying to work with reference templates. If you would take a look at this article and clean up the mess I've created (I did manage to get most of them right, I think) I would appreciate it. I am trying to get a WP:DYK out of this article, and I am close to the "expanded" limit. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

Thank you -- this is ongoing so I don't want to get too effusive. Don't miss his

File:Barberspole.j

Barber pole, ca. 1938, North CMarolina Museum of History

That is FUBARd at the beginning of the article. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

Mike Novato's name is split up improperly in one of the footnotes. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

New subsection.

===Entymology===

Barber pole grasshopper. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

Can you please stop editing the article, and my talk page until I'm done and I remove the {{inuse}} template from the article? Every edit you make to the article edit-conflicts me. Every edit you make here only delays my progress. I'm trying to work as quickly as possible, but some of these citations are woefully lacking in information, and the German conference paper really slowed me down. Imzadi 1979 → 20:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article. I received and understood your Stop sign. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

Here is another source Zip Code Zoo ]

You won't hear from me again until you give me a green light. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

Notes

Ok, the revamp is done. You have some sources though that are either superfluous or just plain unreliable. Blogs and forum posts shouldn't be used as sources. In this revision of the article, footnotes 25, 33, 35, 42, 43 should be removed. Some of them are redundant to other sources, otherwise replacement sources should be found. There is no footnote that has a Mike Novato. There is the Roadside America sources with a third author by the first name of Mike that are published in Novato, CA though.

I don't know what your ultimate plans are for the article, but it's usually suspicious to see 3 footnotes at the end of a sentence. I would also combine one-sentence paragraphs together, and try to condense some of the "other uses" subsections together. The "animal husbandry" and "etymology" sections could be one "Animals" section. The "aviation and space flight", "computer science", "electtonics" and the second music section could be "technology". If you wanted to add in "weather", title it "science and technology". The "gambling", "hockey" and " music" sections could all be lumped together as "recreation". The "Canadian Naval Group" and "daymarks" sections could be one "maritime" section as well. If you split off the aircraft markings into that section, that could be all lumped as "navigation". I'm not sure where I'd put the parachuting, but could be worked into "recreation". (Headings don't count toward the text count for DYK expansion. Neither do anything in bulleted lists, tables, image captions or the references. Imzadi 1979 → 22:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one last comment, but you only have 5 days time to make the expansion under the DYK rules. The DYK reviewer will look at the revision immediately before you started expanding the article, and note the page size. They will then look at the "current" page size and divide it by the first size to get the expansion. It looks like the last time it was small enough for the current size to be 5x larger was back in 2006, I hate to say. Imzadi 1979 → 22:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Minnesota state highway maps

You were looking for these, If I recall. They now have everything except 1955 and 1985-86: [1] --Sable232 (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I can finish the MN part of US 8. That leaves WI yet before it goes to GAN... it could end up the last highway in the UP to get there... along with US 141. Imzadi 1979 → 03:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michigan Highway System

The article Michigan Highway System you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Michigan Highway System for things which need to be addressed. Admrboltz (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of List of special routes in Michigan for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article List of special routes in Michigan, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of special routes in Michigan until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

MI sort

If you want help with AWB settings, running the job or both, just ask, either my talk page or on the AWB tasks page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, but it's already been done by hand. Imzadi 1979 → 22:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WA 22

Not that I mind that the article passed... but I was wondering if you could give it a better review than whats there :P Talk:Washington State Route 22 --Admrboltz (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway FAR

Hi Imzadi - There are just a few things that need to be done before the Pulaski Skyway article can be kept at FAR - one comment on the lead from myself plus a few other comments that were added recently by another editor. Are you interested in working on these or should I go bug someone else? Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

GA M-66 Review

I have placed the article on hold , but I hope you have a great trip out of town. Enjoy your holiday. Racepacket (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We are very close. Please note items marked NOT DONE in the review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. Perhaps you could review a nominated article for someone else? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Measuring distance between exits

I have tried to use yahoo maps to compute the distance between exits, but I am getting inconsistent results. Do you have a better tool to measure short distances along a highway? Could you possibly compute the mile markers for Virginia Route 27? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I found mapmyrun.com, and it works. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, VDOT should have a route log or some other document for the mile markers. For Michigan, I use the Control Section Atlas and the Physical Reference Finder Application from MDOT. For MN, IN and WI, we have those DOTs' log documents. ODOT has straight-line diagrams for OH. According to Viridiscalculus on IRC, http://www.virginiadot.org/info/2009_traffic_data_by_jurisdiction.asp should have the information you seek if you look under Arlington County. Imzadi 1979 → 20:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Second comment, but the measurements should all have the same level of precision, and the footnote for the distances should be given in the header of the table. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I am a reasonably intelligent person, but I can't relate the distances on the the Arlington County PDF with the exit table. Part of the problem is the west to east length is longer than the east to west length and the total number of ramps on the exit table is greater than the number of segments on the PDF. What are the rules for measuring the distances? Do you go from the middle of the bridge to the middle of the next bridge or do you go from merge point of one ramp to the merge point of the next? Do you use the eastbound distance or the westbound distance or average the two? Please help. Racepacket (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Each state has different informal rules for deciding which numbers to use for mileposts, with some states more intuitive than others. For Virginia freeways/divided highways, I suggest using the eastbound mileage numbers, since for roads articles we usually do exit lists west-to-east and north-to-south. It seems the eastbound mileage numbers are for the ramps from eastbound VA 27. It is not a perfect solution, but it is probably better than averaging the eastbound and westbound roadways, which may not provide the mileage of the bridge. As for having more ramps than mileage numbers, I would merge entries (for instance, merge the VA 244 and Pentagon line info into one line) and eliminate lines that are not mentioned at all in the route log. I would also use a mapping program/website to gather approximate distances between points so you can better relate the log entries with the actual roads. For instance, Boundary Drive is the eastern endpoint of VA 27, but that may actually refer to the George Washington Parkway. GW Parkway is much more well known, so that should be included in the Major intersections list instead of Boundary Drive. Let me know if you have further questions; I will check back on this talk page regularly.  VC  21:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cougar

I've expanded the page Eastern Cougar. I suppose my references don't properly work. If you prod me, I might bother to clarify.. (hate the whole business. Try your local library!!...This vaguely provides a larger picture on the subject dear to your heart regarding the UP, without directly referencing.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't care. I only cared about your efforts to butcher the UP article. Imzadi 1979 → 23:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I took a look, and left some comments on the article's talk page. Expect someone else to gut the article or nominate it for deletion. It fails V and WP:RS policies because the links don't work and you didn't provide any additional information. The UP itself is dear to my heart. The whole region. That's where I was born and raised, and the place I still call "home" (or "Home home" to differentiate from my current place of residence.) If I can be blunt, your actions at the UP article were not pleasant. Several of us attempted to find sources to live up to your ever-changing expectations of what information should have been included there. With input from others, I crafted a paragraph that was completely sources to reliable, secondary sources that gave both sides of the debate. You gutted it to insert your POV. Other editors watching restored it. You opened an RfC on the issue which only resulted in more eyes disagreeing with your POV-pushing. Honestly, I don't care what happens to your new article, but take the requests for citations and clarifications on it to heart. I'm done and walking away, Please leave me alone now. Imzadi 1979 → 04:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Canada Roads WikiProject

The sandbox2 version didn't automatically handle class & importance for non-article pages, so I've done a version in sandbox4 which does that. So on a template talk page for example, there is no need to specify class or importance. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, so is sandbox4 ready to be deployed? Sorry, I've been staring at the code for the last two nights, and it's still a bit like greek to me in some ways, and I'm hoping that we can get this banner in use soon. Any help is appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 19:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's ready. I did nothice that there is already a separate banner for Ontario Roads and the category names in the Canada Roads banner don't match up with that though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's intentional. The ONRD banner is to be retired, and those categories removed once they depopulate from the switch. Imzadi 1979 → 20:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know that all the code that was in subtopic, shield & name was redone and put into taskforce. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. Feel free to delete the old ones then. Thanks so much for helping. I'm writing the doc page now and getting ready to deploy the template and create the categories. Imzadi 1979 → 20:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, just check the main ASSESSMENT_CAT param in the banner. It ws set to Canada Road articles in the sandbox but I changed it to Canada Roads articles as those categories existed. If you are switching over to new names then just change that param in the banner. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you change how the template handles the TCH stuff? In other words, does |tch=yes still work or do we need to use province1=TCH|province2=ON? Imzadi 1979 → 20:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You can use either. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good. The former is the preferred method. Thanks again. Imzadi 1979 → 22:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

more cougar

Yes. Thanks. I added dates, volume and page numbers. Perhaps you'll subscribe to these various publications. Maybe I'll be expanding Eastern Cougar article further using the various available research and the extensive "Elvis Factor" material. I welcome your uninvolved stance.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, I don't care. Please stop contacting me in the future on this issue. A proper citiation is more than just a link. It should be some form of bibliographic entry. It should look something like:

Bloggs, Joe.(2010). The Book of Bloggs. Chicago: Foobar Publishing. pp. 10–2.

Creating links to an unsearchable database without indication of the search results does not work. Now that I've given you that tip, leave me alone. Further contact could be considered harassment. Imzadi 1979 → 00:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Calamitybrook, please note that Imzadi's disinterest in the cougar articles doesn't give you a carte blanche to stink it up. Please follow our guidelines and stop bothering my friend. –Fredddie™ 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Imzadi, please do not report people to WP:AIV unless they are actually vandalizing Wikipedia. If you have a content dispute -- or a disagreement over how frequently someone needs to post the same footnote -- for the love of all that's holy that is NOT vandalism on the part of the other editor. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Antandrus, those tags were placed there in good faith twice. There are whole paragraphs and direct quotations in the article that need to be cited per WP:CITE. The editor keeps removing them rather than insert a source for the information. If continuously removing requests for citation on items that need it is not vandalism, then what is it? Imzadi 1979 → 03:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Engage him, politely, on the talk page. If he is editing in good faith -- and it is obvious to me that he is -- you can work it out. Reasonable people can disagree about things like amount of citations that are needed. Remember only statements that are challenged, or statistics, or quotations, are required to have cites. If you are trying to get an article through the FA process, the reviewers may ask for a cite for every fact, but that's not the case everywhere on Wikipedia. Calling his edits vandalism (whatever you may personally think) cannot be productive; it only escalates conflict. Antandrus (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Antandrus, you just said something that backs me up. Twice I've cn-ed a direction quotation, and twice it's been removed. Is that not behavior worthy of discussion as possible vandlism? Imzadi 1979 → 03:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

To Imzadi, the three "I's-plus"

An irrepressible, irresistible and inspired arranger of citations, writer of articles, and conciliator of disputes.

Thank you for your intervention on Upper Peninsula ---- 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

Conflict of opinions over WikiProject banner tagging

I confess to becoming frustrated with the state of our projects current dilemna and have opened up an incident request at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboardhere for clarification. Please take a moment and add your comments so we can get this resolved. --Kumioko (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I delinked the 22 articles our projects had in common

I was curious to see how many articles we have in common...22 including 1 book and 2 categories. I have delinked them. In the future I will make every effort not to edit any of the USRD articles. You are free to edit any WPUS articles you wish. We welcome all help. --Kumioko (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

New Featured Sound

Your Featured sound candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured sound status, File:Cadillacsquareexcerpt.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. BencherliteTalk 11:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Woot. Congrats. –Fredddie™ 04:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Cougar

I was aware of the (superficial) duplication. The urls and titles were the same, but the page numbers differed. The further reading was to the whole article, the citation was to a particular page for a particular proposition. But you're the expert, and I'll defer to your judgment. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

Further reading is for a reasonable number of items that aren't used as sources in the article. Once they're moved into use as references though, they should be pulled from the Further reading section to keep the length of that section down. Imzadi 1979 → 01:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Steeplechase award

Honoring Imzadi1979 as the recipient of the Wikipedia steeplechase award for featured content contributions across 5 of the site's 6 featured content types. A spectacular and unparalleled ability to jump through hoops. An excellent display of effort! With warm respect, SMasters (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In honor of your spectacular ability to jump through Wikipedia's hoops as a content contributor, I hereby award you the Wikipedia steeplechase award. You're a champ! SMasters (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review - Washington State Route 290

Hello, Imzadi1979. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Admrboltz (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:User WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads & category

Hi- just wanted to notify you that the {{User WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads}} and Category:WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads participants need to have their participant category updated, so not to be orphaned in the upcoming deletion. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion notice: smallcaps and LORD

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject U.S. Roads Triple Crown

Your Majesty, I am pleased to award this special edition triple crown to WikiProject U.S. Roads and its hardworking volunteers. – SMasters (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Vroom, vroom... Thank you for all your hard work. May you wear the crowns well, and may the crown sign lead you on the highway to more outstanding articles. – SMasters (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured Sound Candidates discussion

As someone who has nominated or commented on one of the current candidates, a couple of which are getting very old, you are invited to comment at this discussion to see if we can tidy up the FSC page before Christmas (and / or one or more of the nominations). Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 19:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - but when you agreed with the comment "No consensus on Patriotic Song", did you mean "close as no-consensus" or "keep upon until there is consensus"? If you could clarify, that would be useful. Thanks again... Bencherlite^Talk 21:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Sergei Rachmaninoff, which you agreed could be promoted, now has an extra oppose. Can you take a look? Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 01:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Broadway (Tampa)

I would also advise you to review the other streets named Broadway, which are also not as important. The reason I created an article was to be consistent with other cities which have streets named Broadway, not as a county road, per se. --Moreau36--Discuss 00:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bridges and summits are parts of highways

Please reverse your removal of the road-switches from the BC article talkpages - so I don't have to do it for you, it's laborious to correct such errors. All items are parts of numbered provincial highways - major routes. The Sunday Summit exists only as part of a highway, it's not really a pass anyway; and things like the Needles Ferry are parts of the highways they exist only because of. SFAIK bridges and special route-points like passes/summits are very much part of CRWP; it doesn't matter if they're not in the US Roads WP; different standards/content guideilnes apply.Skookum1 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

TBQH, there are no standards or scope for CRWP. That's (one part of) why it's a total mess. I agree on bridges. Ferries and passes are a different story. Passes, while maybe originally built for a road, are their own entities, more important on a geographical or hydrological sense. Ferries I look at individually; some existed well before the highways that they now serve (for example, the MS Manitoulin provided service for many years before Highway 6 was extended to Tobermory). Ultimately I do not believe Ferries are the responsibility of road editors, as the articles are more concerned with the boat, the service, and the schedule. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I was part of this process as well. And due to the lack of a scope or standards, per Floydian above, I went with standard USRD rules. Should members of CRWP choose to include items such as bridges (covered already by Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges), ferries (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships), and mountain passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada's Geography group), then at that time the articles can be tagged with the new {{Canada Roads WikiProject}} tag. |road=yes has been depreciated, and will be removed from {{WikiProject Canada}} which is why it was removed from these articles in the first place. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could return the |road=yes code to the templates, but it won't do anything, That coding has been removed from the banner now. The previously used assessment categories are on there way to deletion. My thoughts are that unless something is going to use {{infobox road}} or {{infobox road junction}}, then it's not part of the project's scope. The only exception are road tunnels that were specifically built to complete a highway. When a project for tunnels is created, then those articles would be spun off to the new project. The reasoning is that the various categories will have very different items to cover that fall outside of the standard expertise of the project's editors. Imzadi 1979 → 04:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Got the sign

Got it :) --Admrboltz (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 I like it –Fredddie™ 00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yah, me too. Also, can you poke people on IRC for me re Template talk:Infobox state highway system? I'm at work with out IRC access :( --Admrboltz (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and UT is getting a Michigan left - [2] --Admrboltz (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Michigan Gov Elect

I placed the information back on gov elect because it is notable and is worth of being there. The Gov elect was notable and like presidents elect he/she is making news about his agenenda, officers, and other issues. This makes it worth of wiki. and it is part of history of the state(s), I am going to be drafting a proposed change to the infobox for states. Jsgoodrich (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but the formatting came out all wrong. Snyder's title was listed in the right column, whereas Granholm's title was on the left with the other boldface headings. Get that fixed, and I can live with it. Imzadi 1979 → 19:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. "Governor elect" is not an office. It is a status. Snyder doesn't hold any office with the state government until he takes the oath as governor. Imzadi 1979 → 19:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Route 41 in Michigan

I took this image of the covered trail that I read about in a magazine that was recommended view at the north end of US 41 just south of Copper Harbor. I don't know where it would fit in the article. Please reply here on your talk page, or you can just add it if you want. I did a trip to the Keweenaw area and took lots of photos; I'm finally getting around to finishing most of the uploads. Royalbroil 04:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on my bot request

Please, I beg you, in the nicest way I can plead with you, if you are not going to follow the discussion through and un-watchlist it after you leave a comment like the one you did, don't bother leaving a comment. Its just wasting everyone's time and energy. --Kumioko (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only one around here that will let others know when they've finished saying all that there is to say and have moved on to other pages or forums. It does not waste anyone's time, in fact it saves you time. I'm done with the issue as I've said all that I need to say. You're the one wasting additional time and effort now coming here just to call my attention back to something I no longer wish to follow. Imzadi 1979 → 06:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Prod tag removed from Army Trail Road

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Army Trail Road, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI

I have raise the unusual closure of the GA review and your subsequent revert on the article talk page at ANI. If you wanted a second opinion, this is not the correct way to request it. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Willow Run airplane inspection.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Willow Run airplane inspection.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Admrboltz (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Connector plate.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Connector plate.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Admrboltz (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

PR-10

I am back to the PR-10 article. As agreed, I am removing stuff that is not related to the physical PR-10 road (that is, removing stuff related to the physical PR-123 road). I am locating such PR-123 road material in teh PR-123 article. You may want to check it out. Mercy11 (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. Everything HERE has been addressed. Seems to me the article can now be upgraded. Your thoughts? Mercy11 (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have upgraded the article to B-class. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Puerto Rico Highways

Hummmmm, I am not sure if there is anything that is wanted from me to help solve THIS problem... Do I just sit tight now and until something happens? What is supposed to happen next??? Mercy11 (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

AFD discussions

I have closed all three discussions as a speedy keep, FYI. Dusti^*poke* 23:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Peña Boulevard

Mind making me a sign? There are two signs and they both read:

  PEÑA
BOULEVARD

They are on AA Roads but since they hate hotlinking lately... image "Another mileage sign is posted after the 56th Avenue interchange" and "A green guide sign doubles as an END shield for Peña Boulevard" are the two in question. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Weren't we just talking about this =-)

See Talk:U.S. Route 395, well someone did it. I know we just did this and have somewhat differing opinions, so I would appreciate the feedback. Dave (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida)

As the initiator of this merger discussion, would you be willing to relist it again so that it can be reevaluated based on the fact that a history section has been added to the article? In the spirit of giving the article its fair consideration, I think it would be the right thing to do & this request has received no response from the community. I see no harm in letting this article go through another round of discussion for another week, considering it has been in existence for almost 4 years. Right now, it appears burried in the leftover area of discussions. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about untranscluding

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Clarify_my_argument.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Of Myrtle Avenue (Eureka)

Can You Please Stop Deleting My Artictes My Articles Are True I Live In Eureka California And We Have Big Famous Harris St, Walnut Dr, I St, H St And Myrtle Avenue So Please Stop Deleting The Myrtle Avenue Page Or Im Going To Delete Your Talk Page Thank You offrecord09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offrecord09 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

RE:Your latest personal attack

Re: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Mercy11#Your_latest_personal_attack , yes the Govt of PR DOT makes a road map of PR. It is available HERE (it's under "A good Puerto Rican Road Map"). Let me know if that is enough for you or if you wish a hardcopy instead. Mercy11 (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A hard copy would be appreciated. So far I have most of the 50 states, 10 provinces, Guam, Nunavut in my collection. I really need to go through the stack again to see what's missing to make new requests, but I know that PR isn't one of them. If you can tell me if they print copies and how I could request a copy, that would be perfect. Thanks. Imzadi 1979 → 05:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You can get a hardcopy two ways: (1) You can order one in the mail, I believe it costs $5.95, or (2) you can download the map yourself from the site above. I wanted to make sure you had realized that. Do not click on the map itself, instead once at the page I gave you, scroll down to "A good Puerto Rican Roads Map", and you will see the map there, but DO NOT click on the map, instead follow the instructions just below the map to download the 2 sections of the map. You can then print in on as large as your printer will allow and put the two pieces together for a one-pice map. If you want a larger map yet, take the 2 downloaded files to a Kinko's, Staples, etc, on a USB and they will print it out for you on as big a sheet as you wish. Mercy11 (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Where can I order it? I don't speak or read Spanish, but I took French in high school so between that and Google Translate, I can navigate specific pages if I know where to look on the DOT website. Imzadi 1979 → 21:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The tourism board suggests [3] or [4]. On the other-hand, the highway log is online. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I would call that a highway log before I'd call it the highway log. It's more of a freeway log than anything else. –Fredddie™ 23:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

True. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mercy, do you have a link to the DOT's order page? Imzadi 1979 → 03:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I am supposed to go to PR for work next month for a couple days if you want I will leave you a message and see if you still need it and grab one for you while I am there. --Kumioko (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WT:WPUS

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Racepacket (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I found *your* userbox :P

{{User:Dough4872/User Hollister}} --Admrboltz (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Imzadi1979. You have new messages at Kumioko's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replied to your comments on my talk page. Just in summery though I tagged 3 articles so I fail to understand how this demonstrated some hostile takeover of WPUS. I feel compelled to remind you that you do not own the articles. --Kumioko (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Image review

Hi Imzadi, I noticed you comment on the copyright status of images at WP:FAC and thought I would try a preemptive strike. I am not sure of the protocol or if there is a better way to do this, so feel free to decline or point me in the right direction. Anyways, a group of us are trying to get New Zealand up to Featured standard. One of the editors has started going through the images and left comments on the the talk page. Some need a second opinion and I was hoping you would be willing to offer it. Only half the images have been reviewed so far, so there is no rush. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to give it a look in the coming days. My time is suddenly getting busier (one article almost ready for FAC waiting on the potential co-nom, one going through an A-Class Review for a solo FAC nomination, and another editor wanting to co-nom a third article at FAC) but I should have the time to help out, especially if I delay the third article a while longer. Imzadi 1979 → 07:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We only really need a second opinion so hopefully it won't take up to much of your time. Anything slightly dodgy we can probably throw as there are plenty of images in the wings. AIRcorn (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Image reviews are actually pretty easy in most cases compared to prose. It either is or isn't validly licensed. Everyone has a different opinion on writing style. I've already planned some time to give everything an opinion. Imzadi 1979 → 07:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Real McCoy (ferry)

New article. Part of the highway system. Any help could be appreciated. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Stan

Sorry, ferries are outside of my realm of expertise; our project doesn't cover them. You could ask at WT:SHIPS or WT:SFBA for help. I might be able to help later on, but I have two articles I'm prepping for FAC (U.S. Route 131 and Brockway Mountain Drive), with a third (M-185 (Michigan highway)) headed there before long as well. That, and I'm down to 22 counties left to get Good Articles for my county-challenge list/map (User:Imzadi1979/county-ga)Imzadi 1979 → 19:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is officially part of CA-84. Thanks for thinking about that, and for the suggestion. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Stan

Yes, but we don't even work on the articles about bridges on the highway systems, leaving those articles for WP:BRIDGES normally. Yes, it might be a bit too focused, but we stick to pavement and signs normally. Imzadi 1979 → 19:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I*'m planning on doing an article about the shoulder of the Mackinac Highway. You mean you road guys won't touch it. Just kidding. One has to draw a line somewhere. Thanks again. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Stan

Street/road infoboxes

Is it not possible to have the adjacent arterials noted with the street template? I do think this is useful information to have. - SimonP (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's a feature that's been added, but that does not mean it can't be included. {{Infobox road}} is designed specifically for state highways and was not meant for city streets. {{Infobox street}} is supposed to be able to details more pertinent for city streets. I don't edit in the US Streets project, so I'm not up on that stuff. Imzadi 1979 → 21:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter changes

Thanks for making those changes to the newsletter. --Kumioko (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

PR Road Map

You may already have this info, but wanted to respond formally, which I couldn't do before; I was on a trip. The map I was refering to is this ONE by MetroData.

It is my belief that PR Dept of Transportation does not issue its own maps but instead has it contracted out to MetroData for the drafting, development, printing, and marketing aspect and apparently PR DOT only gives it its blessing (for the technical aspect and to make it an "official" government issue).

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to dispute my citation for vandalism

Hello, I have been flagged and warned by you about vandalizing articles with "jokes." I did no such thing. And this swift response and refusal to take my additions seriously is very unfriendly and unprofessional behavior. I introduced well-cited and quoted lines from a satirical article printed by the [New York Times] in their special millennium edition, which purported to have been published in the future. As this was a well-known feature of the NYTimes, I added the relevant content to the articles on the Port Authority Bus Terminal, Lincoln Tunnel, Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, Cross Bronx Expressway, and Donald Trump. In the same manner that popular culture, artistic reference, or notable fictional events are introduced into factual articles on Wikipedia. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's hero, Sherlock Holmes, is mentioned early in the article on Reichenbach Falls#Artistic references, despite his fictional nature. My additions were introduced as interpretations on the relevant design, or with the case of Donald Trump in his Donald Trump#In the media, which in the case of an article published by the New York Times, satirically analyzing his Trump Towers on Fifth Av and the Hudson, would seem to be the appropriate place.---James R (talk) 16:00, February 8, 2011

New Zealand image review

Thanks for commenting on our image review. I've replied there. Yes, I think I was wrong about the coat of arms. I don't agree with your other point though. --Avenue (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Interstate 81 in West Virginia

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for U.S. Route 11 in West Virginia

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Pine Mountain Ski Jump

Have I missed anything? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Much improved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why...

doesn't Portal:Washington Roads/Did you know/random work when Portal:Washington Roads/Intro/I random does? --AdmrBoltz 03:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

quesque c'est 313

vos explication ne m explique pas se que veux dire 313 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.80.102.9 (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

formatting question

Hi. I have a formatting question: I have several external links to aerial maps. Now, I have a reference in the main article, with the reference containing the link to the map with a one sentence description. However, it would be more reader friendly to place (map) after the road name, with the word map being the external link. Should I do that, or keep as is? Example: Lawrence Expressway (map) or Lawrence Expressway AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

External links do not belong in the body of the article. They belong in the "External links" section of the article unless they are being used as a reference. Imzadi 1979 → 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for M-37 (Michigan highway)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rosie's Diner

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for M-46 (Michigan highway)

Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

iLoo

Just wanted to say thanks for cleaning up some of the dates for iLoo. I've never really see you edit outside of anything somehow pertinent to roadways=P.Smallman12q (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of M-74 (Michigan highway)

Hello, Imzadi1979. You have new messages at Talk:M-74 (Michigan highway)/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--PCB 04:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing was, when I saw that you had replied MDOT had not yet been linked. I'm not quite sure when you did link it, but that was why I put this tag on. (pretty lame reason, I could've done it myself.) --PCB 02:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

SABRE (Deletion Review)

Thanks for your comments re: SABRE. I don't have the time to do anything at the moment, but at some point I'll attempt to assemble all of the media references we have and put together a proposal. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit U.S. Route 131

Hi

I have started the copyedit and gone as far as the start of the Northern Michigan section but have to take a break for a little while. I have left the GOCE banner on so that any GOCE people know it is still ongoing.

Hope it meets your approval so far :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it ok so far? I was hoping you would read it down to the start of the section I mentioned above and comment. I have spent most of today catching up on my watchlist, some important Wiki Guides project page edits, my own userpage tabs (which are starting to be used by others so needed updating) and a 6 hour marathon RfC and Admin notice run, 4 of which was on one editors ANI which only started this afternoon.

I have to catch up on a few smaller things, both on Wiki and IRL, but should be ok to resume the editing in about an hour or so. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There are things that I would prefer to change back, but overall it's fine. My policy is that if a GoCE member is working on an article, or if anyone place a similar style template at the top of an article, I keep my hands off until he or she completes their editing, then comment. Imzadi 1979 → 23:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, finished! It is interesting enough, though many of the areas are totally lost on me as I am not from the USA and my brother lives a little further east in NY state. :¬)

There are some notes on the talk page regarding things which may/may not need addressing. Best wishes on the FA, I hope you are successful. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you went up two levels. Congratulations, and thank you for your many contributions to the Wikipedia! Herostratus (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball FAC: Thank you for the review

Thank you for helping to review Netball. I've never been through the FAC process and I found your edits and comments regarding what needed fixing to be extremely helpful. While the article may have failed, the feedback was insightful, on point and offers a clear route to addressing issues in the article. Speaking for myself and other regular contributors, we'll definetely be addressing the problems raised so that at some point in the future we can renominate it and get it passed. Thanks again for the assistance! --LauraHale (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input

Thanks for the help on the list. Does USRD care about Bicycle routes like U.S. Bicycle Route 1 or bridges? there are a couple of bridges I notice. --Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't scan the whole list closely... those two just stuck out. Bridges: no. We've been systematically purging any tagging of bridge-only articles. As for the bike routes, the answer kind of depends on the phase of the moon lately. Personally, I don't think they really fall under our scope, but we haven't had a full discussion with any definite answers yet. Imzadi 1979 → 19:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ill take out the Bridges and I noticed a US 1 truck show that Ill remove as well. For now Ill leave the bike routes in but there are less than 10 so there not really a big deal. Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for the help. As a new wikipedia user you really helped me with my article I-81 Controversy in Syracuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcwarden1990 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Brockway Mountain Drive

Is there a specific reason you did not post the peer review in the USRD announcements? If there is, I can't infer it at the moment. — PCB 22:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when I send a future FAC to WP:PR, I specifically don't want USRD participation. The idea is that at PR, the article will get some outside review before it's sent to FAC. That doesn't mean a USRD editor can't participate, but I'd prefer to get some external feedback first. Imzadi 1979 → 22:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. There isn't any precedent on it (VC posted US 113 to the announcements). — PCB 22:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, but I'd feel better if the reviewers at PR gave the article a fresh look. I can always request comments on WT:USRD like I did with Capitol Loop before I send it to FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for M-64 (Michigan highway)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of M-64 (Michigan highway)

The article M-64 (Michigan highway) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:M-64 (Michigan highway)/GA1 for things which need to be addressed. — PCB 01:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Racepacket and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Rschen7754 04:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Source for maps

Many apologies for taking such a long time to reply (I'm not very active on Wikipedia these days) but I've added some source info for the file as requested. Shereth 01:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Racepacket and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --LauraHale (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RFAR Racepacket

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

About your recently posted evidence: If Racepacket's continued comments on Netball-related matters really bothers you, you could always request that he be given a temporary injunction on such comments by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop. I don't know whether you really think it rises to that level, or if they'd approve it, but the option exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I would have thought that it is common sense that if a dispute has risen to ArbCom for resolution that the both parties would stop the disputed activities. One has, but one hasn't. Imzadi 1979 → 00:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lower alpha footnotes

Your suggestion was great but I am having trouble figuring out how to get the "ref group" thing to make lower case letters in a Footnotes section on the list. Would you mind doing the first one at List of Seattle bridges as an example? Cptnono (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

With only 8 of them, it was just easier for me to convert them all. The fourth and sixth explanatory footnotes (now d and f) did not have foonotes in the text, so I could use <ref name="foo" group="lower-alpha">Text of note.</ref>. The others each had a citation footnote nested in the explanatory footnote. For those, I used {{#tag:ref| Text of note.<ref>Text of citation</ref> |name="bar" |group="lower-alpha"}} In both cases, I named all of the explanatory footnotes with the initials of the specific bridge's name. If you have any questions on what I did, just ask, and I'll try to help explain and answer more or better. Imzadi 1979 → 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the hand. I was trying to do it based on the example article you had provided but was making a mistake somewhere. Have a great day!Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

asdfas

ACTUALLY, the revert was made because I'm an IP address, despite what you would say, deep down you know it's true. Would it help if I told you my account got perm banned for disruptive editing? 24.130.62.48 (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My User Page

I took your advice that I had to much personal information and deleted all of it. Can we ask an "oversigher" to remove any early versions of my page so none of that info can be found. User:Route11|User talk:Route11 6:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 131/archive1

I hope my concern over the BLP isn't holding up this FAC; I suspect it's not since no one agreed with me and I supported. There's a fairly quick fix, if you want to take it; we can just ask over at WP:BLPN whether they share my concerns. If not, then I'm wrong, and I can strike that part. - Dank (push to talk) 22:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your immense expert guidance and help at the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article which just achieved Featured Article.North8000 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

How do users become administrators?

Well, how do some people become administrators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.110.182 (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Interstate Highway Template

I have taken notice that you have notched down the font sizes in the templates I've created except some (i.e. Texas) that I've edited to a more uniform. I can understand the template font standards but the original reason for the larger size is to ensure they are large enough to be clickable with some to no issues as these are numeral digits. And the main Interstate template have a slightly larger font for the numbers than the standard sized. GETONERD84 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There was an article in the Washington Post about it

There was an article in the Washington Post about it, and I have driven MD-200/I-370 several times and attended the ribbon-cutting ceremony for MD-200 and every time you drive on MD-200, you have to use I-370 to access it/when it ends... I do not mind you requesting that I use a reference, but please don't act like you know EVERYTHING about a highway that is thousands of miles away from you, and that I have driven (and payed the redicules toll lol :P)about 1000000 million times and drove it the day of the ribbon cutton (2/21/11), and opening day (2/23/11)---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dea41396 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I had to remove your addition to I-370 again though. The source you provided does not back up the claim; we can't use reader comments on a newspaper's website as a source, only the news story itself, and that story doesn't not support the addition. Sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 01:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Silly question, but if your car is fast enough to drive the same road over 10,000 times daily for three months, why take a toll road? You could have saved millions in tolls! –Fredddie™ 03:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you obsessed with removing edits from me? Or are you obsessed with removing edits from highways that are hundreds of thousands of miles away from you that you have never been on nor know nothing about? Or Both?

Also, I understand that there is no reference, but must I drive about 250 miles from my house back down to MD since I am now back to visiting the DC area once a month? I may do that for you if I must, just to prove you wrong since you obviously want to be a know-it-all and insist on references... I am not trying to be mean here but come on =/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dea41396 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Read WP:5 Pillars, particularly the second pillar.
2. Read meta:DBAD, because your "I live here and you don't" attitude is appalling.
3. Please sign your posts.

Thank you. –Fredddie™ 01:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And 4. Calm down. It's just an encyclopedia. --Rschen7754 01:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for M-134 (Michigan highway)

Materialscientist (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

M-17

An article that you have been involved in editing, M-17 (Michigan highway) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. cmadler (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

M-221 (Michigan highway) nomination

Hi! Thought I'd let you know I reviewed M-221 at GAN and it is currently on hold, pending two comments. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has passed. Nice work! --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

M-149 (Michigan highway) nomination

I also reviewed M-149 (Michigan highway). I found no problems with the article, and it is now a pass. Once again, congratulations! --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are roads more important than a cemeteries

Please note I have been out of the country and still am so I have not had time to deal with these stupid edit wars you like to have. I have now known that you have several times tried to remove things you do not like. I would have to spend time to find them all, but I refuse to waste time.

Personally I think all the time you spend on roads as a waste. However, I do not spend my time nominating your articles for deletion. Cemeteries are history, and they have a lot of knowledge for people, plus for some not me they server as a religious sites. Yet, you find them not worthy of Wiki. I would like to know why? Please tell me this page is better than any other on wiki M-216 (Michigan highway).

Why should I mark it for deletion? After all wiki is not a collection of information.Jsgoodrich (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Çukurova motorway

Anyway, deletion propose was not a good idea. But I strongly support the article, if it should be revamped as a disambig page. OnurT 20:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hobart Bypass

Thanks for giving this page a rating..... was wondering if you had time to give Rokeby Bypass a rating also?. Thankyou muchly :) p.s. How did you get that disclaimer to appear for me when writing this msg? kind regards Wiki ian 08:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Every page has a "page notice" that can be created for it. It shows up when the edit function is used on that page. For this one, it's at User_talk:Imzadi1979/Editnotice. If you like this one, you should see the one that appears for my user page itself. :) Imzadi 1979 → 12:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

RMS Titanic citations

Your expertise in citation formatting for the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article really helped it achieve FA status. North8000 and I are working on the Titanic article before trying to reestablish it's FA status. There is no consistency to the citation formatting. Would you be interested in helping clean up the citations?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I'd love to help on that article. It helps that my third FAC for the year has closed, and my fourth is going to be a few months off at least. Do you guys want me to scrub through the citations now or later? Either way, I image we'd need to scrub through them again on the eve of an FAC nomination when the article is being "finalized" in the form desired going into the nomination. Then of course, we have another decision to make in how to do the overall format. There's doing everything as shortened footnotes like the Fitz article, or doing only the "dead-tree" sources in shortened footnotes like U.S. Route 131.

BTW, I use User talk:Dr pda/editrefs.js installed on my account that separates the references from the article in the edit window, and those {{sfn}} templates don't play nice with it at all, which is why I've never used them before. Using it, I can edit every reference in the entire article at once by editing the whole article, not just a section, and clicking the "Edit references" link in my toolbox, which brings up a separate text entry box for each item in ref tags. That's how I can easily edit all of them for consistency at once. Imzadi 1979 → 22:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for agreeing to help with the citations. It looks to me like the Titanic article was mostly using the method used in U.S. Route 131 article so we should probably stay with that unless North8000 has another preference. Give me a couple more days to run down more sources for the Titanic article and then I'll let you know when to start your scrubbing magic. As you say, it will probably take several scrubs before it is clean.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You both know more than me about reference formatting and so I'll defer to whatever y'all think is best. My only concern is that if we go 2 tier and use the more sophisticated formatting that other editors may be afraid to add references. I think that a simple note on the talk page or somewhere ("just put 'em in, we'll tidy them up") would take care of that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Imzadi, I finished working on the sources so please start cleaning up the citations whenever you can. Some of the sources probably still need replaced. I'm not sure about Encyclopedia Titanica as a source. After discussing it with North8000, I left it in until for now.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Portal United States

Greetings, I am just following up with some of the participating parties on the status of the request for getting Portal United States to Featured status. Do you have any ideas about whats left to be completed? --Kumioko (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings and thanks for the comments on the portal review. I noticed that one of your concerns related to Featured content. I left a comment on the review page but I wanted to give you some extra details. Basically I asked for JL-Bot to be modified to update the list using multiple categories and the bot owner was kind enough to do so. I have updated the automation script here with all most of the major US projets (I didn't put the city, university or Misc projects though). If there is a project that you think should be added feel free to do so. I just wanted to let you know that is working now. Once the bot updates the page again I will link it to the portal.

I am also going to start helping Sven with updating the Anniversaries and see if we can get those done in the next month or so. --Kumioko (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got the nomination on my watchlist, and I'm following your progress there. I await updates on the nomination page. Imzadi 1979 → 17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:INR

Hi can you please check commons ?Someone is waiting for your reply :) -- naveenpf (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please check the NH template ?--naveenpf (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments & advice on the SABRE page.

I'm not a member of their group, but a casual browser of the sites and by sheer coincidence I bumped into Ritchie333 a couple of weeks ago where he was telling me his problems. They also have some frustration that a number of the motorway & road articles previously copied SABRE content without proper citation, though there are now some external links at the bottom. I wonder if you had any suggestions for restoring faith. I don't think the answer is to go into each article and cry "plagiarism!". Davoloid (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is what needs to be done! Well, sorta. If direct phrases was copied verbatim, then the content in the Wikipedia article is a copyright violation, and the articles need to be scrubbed of that violation. If the information was copied, but rephrased in a different manner, then it's not a copyright violation. The second question is if the wording paraphrases the SABRE content too closely. One thing to remember, at this time, SABRE's webpages, especially Roader's Digest, are not considered reliable sources because it's all self-published and user-generated. If you look through any of the higher-quality articles on highways in Michigan, you'll see that I don't use the Michigan Highways webpage as a source: it's all sourced to historical maps and newspaper articles in addition to documentation from the Michigan Department of Transportation. That's the same situation, a self-published roadgeek website, and even when I have MDOT and the Library of Michigan telling me to use the site as a source, I can't. So for those same reasons, SABRE's pages should not be used as a source for Wikipedia articles, and only an external link. Imzadi 1979 → 17:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, rewrite done:Roadgeek#SABRE - see also comments about the wider article here: Talk:Roadgeek#June_2011_tidy_up. Again, thanks for help! Davoloid (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, see my comments over there, but I had already rewritten that paragraph to address many of the concerns over the old article in the process of merging it over. In the end, your rewrite of my rewrite undid some of those positive change and reinserted the old issues into the other article. Imzadi 1979 → 15:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket closed

An arbitration case regarding Racepacket has closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Racepacket (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year
2. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes
3. LauraHale (talk · contribs) and Racepacket are prohibited from interacting with one another
4. Hawkeye7 is prohibited from taking administrative action "with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale".

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Afd

Please have a look at this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 394 (2nd nomination) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

M-17 GAR

You were the last one to comment on the GAR ten days ago. You had said you'd like to see the review stay open for a week "to see if there is any support for the issues raised, though I would be looking to close at that point if there is no support". Well, no one else has commented since you did on the 11th. I'm just curious what you think. Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 03:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Closed as kept. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

SABRE Wiki on List of wikis

Hi,

I've started stepping a bit more boldly into the fray and cleaned up a few UK Roads articles, put better sources on them (such as Hansard) and nominated a couple for deletion (eg: A4289 road) that I didn't feel were particularly notable enough for Wikipedia and didn't have any sources. One of the hints on WP:WWMPD to deal with deleted articles is to "Try another wiki", of which Roader's Digest - The SABRE Wiki is such a place for British and Irish Roads. I'd quite like to push for having a limited set of very high quality articles on Wikipedia, and "bleeding edge" stuff on SABRE, and have mentioned it here in the past to no response.

Since, as you previously stated, SABRE falls just about on the edge of WP:Notability, this might be a suitable candidate for List of wikis, and would probably be better than me going round whacking people on the head with a WP:COI hammer saying "take it to SABRE, goddamit".

What do you think? --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As far as I'm concerned, the SABRE CoI ends at coverage of the group itself or its members. In dealing with the roads themselves, you'd only have a CoI if you worked for the government and dealt with transportation planning or highway maintenance. Since I don't work for MDOT, county road commissions, or any of the regional transportation and infrastructure planning agencies, I can't think of a way I could have a CoI regarding Michigan's highway system. Assuming the same for yourself with the various British analogs to those agencies, you shouldn't have one either. Imzadi 1979 → 16:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks Imzadi naveenpf (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

North Carolina Highway 281

I noticed you recently added a junction at the state line for North Carolina Highway 281, Typically, I usually ignored those on the junction list because its a continuation of the highway and not a junction (it is also shown in the terminus section). I was considering reversing it, but figured you probably had reason for it. So just want to know why this would be unique? Thanks for your time. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

In a sense though, it does "intersect" the other highway, even though it's a seamless transition across the state line. I've always listed them because frankly it looks extremely odd not to have the zero milepost location indicated, unless the mileposts are intentionally offset and there isn't a zero. Most other states include the state-line connections, even on "state-detail" articles like U.S. Route 41 in Michigan where the overall designation continues across the line. Imzadi 1979 → 00:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I get the jest of it, but I've never read any publication from NCDOT (or SCDOT) that acted as if the state line was a junction; they pass it off as a continuation of said route. I will not un-edit it since its a valid argument, but I don't plan to create/change future junction lists to include state crossings outside the terminus section of road box. Thanks for your insight. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If zero mileposts are not a requirement of WP:RJL, they should be. Of course, to me, it's blatantly obvious that they should always be included. –Fredddie™ 18:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the other advantage to a junction list: the mileage at the terminal junction should be the overall length of the highway. That means that the length in the infobox and maybe in text in the lead is repeated in the body of the article in some fashion. If the terminal junction is on a state line and not indicated, with either end, that messes up that basic truth/assumption regarding the length. If the south/west terminus is on the state line, then the zero point isn't listed, and a reader would naturally assume to subtract the lowest mile post from the highest and short-change the length of the road. If the north/east terminus isn't listed, that same reader would naturally look only at the highest mile post and disregard the remainder of the road. Imzadi 1979 → 18:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

NJ Turnpike source

Hello. I have a question for you. How come you provided a link for a source that does not work when I click it? – Tinton5 (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The archived copy at archive.org works for me. The original comes up page not found. Imzadi 1979 → 01:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Route 370

Please help me out. When you add a template to a talk page, please consider adding the class and importance. For example, at Talk:Pennsylvania Route 370, make it say {{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=B|importance=low}}, with class and importance just like the roads template. I am attempting to get every Pennsylvania article rated, and I have a long way to go. You can help. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:USRD uses the assessment scale a bit differently below GA-Class, so I don't tend to reassess articles for other projects unless it's glaringly obvious that the article is either a Stub-Class or B-Class, and even then I'm loathe to do it. I will never assess importance for another project because I'm not a member of those projects and importance ratings are too subjective for non-project members to do. USRD is in the middle of a stub-reduction drive again this year, and two project members are actively working on PA highway articles, and requesting reassessment via our channel on IRC. I'm not the only one that will respond to these request, but I might be the only one that won't bump other projects' assessments. Blanking the assessment should be enough to prompt someone from WikiProject Pennsylvania, such as yourself, to reassess the article for that project. Imzadi 1979 → 01:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I also won't reassess other projects for the same reasons, so you're not the only one. –Fredddie™ 04:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Same here. --Rschen7754 07:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Template question

Hi, I noticed that you commented on Template talk:Jctint and I have a question about the template. How can I add a row for a county that doesn't have any junctions? An example of this is on Texas State Highway 71 with San Saba and Blanco counties. Thanks for any help, Theking17825 03:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) {{Jctco}} works for that purpose. –Fredddie™ 04:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there are a small series of templates we have in addition to the table header and footer.

• {{jctint}} is used for a normal junction in a normal junction list.
• {{jctbridge}} and its alternate {{jctrestarea}} will add a bridge crossing or rest area entry. This works the same as the first one, except that the |bridge= or |restarea= produces the box that spans the destination and notes column. There is also a |river= parameter if you need a river crossing that spans the county and location column that's helpful when the river is a border.
• {{jctco}} is used to add a row for "No junctions" for the county. You'd just need to define the state and county and it will do the rest.

Something I'll suggest that you didn't ask about is single-county or single-location highways. MOS:RJL says that if a highway only runs in one county to drop the county column. {{jcttop}} has the state and county parameters in it. When you define the county in the header, it drops the column and inserts the note: "The entire route is in X County." The county name is wikilinked and all that good stuff. If you define the location in the header as well, it drops the location column and uses the note: "The entire route is in X, Y County." There are also parameters for the header template to change the tense of the not (The entire route was...) for former highways in a single county, and even to shut off the note completely. If the county is defined in the header, just skip it in jctint/jctbrige and the column won't appear. Ditto the location.

Another trick I use is for freeway transition points. I use the bridge template and set the "bridge" to be "Freeway begins" or "Freeway ends". Now, there is also {{jctexit}} that works the same as {{jctint}} but also sets up the exit number column if you use {{exittop}}, and all of the others will use {{jctco|exit}}, {{jctbridge|exit}} etc to work in an exit list instead of a junction list. (They need "exit" as a first unnamed parameter value to trigger the code so they work in an exit list.) Imzadi 1979 → 05:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks to both of you for all your help! :) Theking17825 05:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for all your help. Without your posts on my talk page and mine on yours, my highway-related edits would be alot worse. :) Theking17825 05:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you. I hope my little tutorial above wasn't too much, but those basics should pretty much get you started. Once you learn the tricks with {{jctint}}, the others are just variations on the same theme.

I did forget to mention, that if you don't already know, there's the |county_special= and |location_special= in jctint and jctbridge if you need to customize what appears. That's very handy for junctions that fall on "unusual" locations. If the location doesn't need to be linked, just enter the name as you want it to appear without a link. If the location is a river that isn't a county line, add the appropriate formatted wikilink into location_special. If the junction falls on a county or municipal boundary because you can specify the wikilinks and text. I will use A–B formatting with the two areas linked for either side of the boundary joined by an en dash (–). I usually insert a <br/> after the dash to force a line break. On M-120 (Michigan highway), I was cursing MDOT for locating a junction on a county tri-point, but if you look at the code there, you'll see how it can be done. Any more questions, ask away at any time. Imzadi 1979 → 07:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Complex citation

I have an interesting idea for routes that would otherwise have many, many citations for the length. For instance, routes in Virginia can be cited to each county's traffic book, and some may go through 10 counties. Check my sandbox. It's just an idea, though. –Fredddie™ 23:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for M-35 (Michigan highway)

Award reversed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. note that this award is based on the ruling that the article first became encyclopedic with this edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am looking for your feedback on the current policy as it relates to your comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Uruguayan Routes

Hi, I noticed your remark in the edit summary. For the moment I am listing everything essential I can find. I am still missing important info to get to any informative prose, but yes, I agree with the stucture you are suggesting. Hoverfish Talk 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We intentionally added a separate |translation= parameter to {{infobox road}} that is filled in automatically for some countries to keep things consistent. Israeli highways have the Hebrew names in Hebrew script (which isn't italicized) with the Latin alphabet transliteration (which is italicized) using that parameter. Ditto highways in countries that use the Cyrillic alphabet. It just keeps everything neat and tidy, as well as consistent across all of WP:HWY, the global highways project. Imzadi 1979 → 19:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi, I'm working on creating an article for U.S. Route 77 in Texas and I have a question about the junction list. The road is concurrent with Interstate 35 for a good portion, and as far as I can tell, it's unsigned along 35. Should I still include junctions that are along the concurrent part in the list? Thanks, Theking17825 04:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You have two options, but personally I'd include the junctions. You could put a single row in between the concurrency termini that references I-35 with a link there. The reason I don't like that option is that it makes the article less complete to me. You'd be missing a way to list all of the counties through which US 77 passes in TX which would reinforce that line of the infobox. I know that TxDOT might not sign it, but AASHTO would consider it a continuous highway, and their logs online would list all of the junctions, even if the signage isn't put up. Imzadi 1979 → 04:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll include the junctions. Also, where can I find the junctions on the AASHTO website? I've been looking for a better source than Google Maps... :) Theking17825 04:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, second thought, but if you do include I-35's intervening exits, I wouldn't use I-35's MPs directly. The math is simple, and isn't an issue, to figure what US 77's MPs would be. Subtract the MP along I-35 at the southern end of the concurrency from the US 77 MP at that location. Use whatever positive or negative number you get to add to the I-35 MP for the various junctions to get what US 77's MP would be for that junction. The exit numbers for those junctions will be related to I-35 anyway.

The AASHTO logs are at AASHTO URN Database, linked from U.S. Route Number Database (Dec 2009).Imzadi 1979 → 04:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

FOUR development

I got your note. Yes in many subjects areas all the notable subjects have been stubbed out. This is not a surprise. New authors will not be doing FOUR work for U.S Presidents, Sovereign nations, etc. However, every once in a while, even highly developed subjects have some holes for notable subjects in need of work. Just a few months ago, I was doing work on Template:Grammy Award for Record of the Year and noticed one was linking to a dab page. Now, "Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) is at FAC and hopeful of inclusion in the FOUR group. Also, this award motivates old-timers to work on their stubs. You can see some people now cleaning up their oldest articles to try to get to the top of some of the FOUR sorts. As I understand it, every now and then a new highway is created. Usually, they are short distances, such as a new beltway for a city. However, earning FOUR awards is not what WP is all about. Just do whatever you enjoy doing and try to help out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Max Bernard Franc

I wasn't sure that Max Bernard Franc's article was a BLP. I did some looking, and it is covered under WP:BLP, since his death is not verified in a reliable source.

That said, there is coverage of his trial and conviction in the Los Angeles Times. However, that seems to be the only thing notable about him. So, even though I've rewritten the article based on what I found from the Times, I've tagged it for a "regular" proposed deletion, as he's only notable for the one event, but there are reliable sources covering him.

I've explained this all on the article's talk page, but I wanted to message you directly to explain why I changed the prod. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

E71 route review

Hi! Thanks for your review of the E71. I was really unsure what needed to be done there since few E-road articles exhibit any consistency among themselves in terms of content or formatting. I added a history section providing general information about the route and major developments pertaining to significant constituent parts and briefly mentioning some ideas or plans for further upgrades. Once again, thank you, your comments were very constructive as always. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

accusation of edit war revisited

Re National Maximum Speed Law‎, if I didn't want to "edit war" with this IP, what would you have me do now? 0¹⁸ (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking for the page to be semi-protected. That will force the IP to the talk page by locking him/her out of editing the article. Imzadi 1979 → 19:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for helping me with this. 0¹⁸ (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The admin I asked full-protected for 3 days. Full protection was used to avoid taking a side (since this disagreement does involve a registered account, full protection locks both sides out of editing, not one). Hopefully this will work. Imzadi 1979 → 19:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I-95 article

Hi, I am a traffic engineer in South Florida. I am trying to piece together the history of US 1 in the very south end of Miami-Dade County. I saw in your I-95 article that you referenced a map...General Highway Map, Dade County, Florida, September 1972 reprinted 1980... Is there any way I can get a copy of that map? FDOT only has the "revised" map which is from the mid 1980's.

Thanks for any help you can give me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmdengr (talk • contribs) 17:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I can't help you. I'm not involved with the I-95 article. The last edit I made to Interstate 95 was on November 15, 2010, to fix some dashes. My last edit to Interstate 95 in Florida was on June 16, 2010, when we were updating how the coding for the infobox works on all of the various US road articles. (The infobox is that summary in the upper right corner of the articles that lists the dates, junctions, length, etc.) I do not have that map, nor do I know who does. Imzadi 1979 → 17:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRN request

This is to let you know that there is a post involving you at the dispute resolution noticeboard. --Rschen7754 05:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of consensus issue

In this archived discussion you claimed that, in this other archived discussion, "the consensus has been to avoid geocoding the articles until a satisfactory way to display the coordinates without cluttering the articles is found.". I wonder whether you could kindly say on what grounds you reached that conclusion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Pre-RFC straw poll

There is a brief straw poll to see if conducting a RFC on the question of coordinates in road articles is worthwhile. Your input would be appreciated. --Rschen7754 08:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User:204.111.64.196

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Over-aggressive warnings/ blocking of User:204.111.64.196. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Brockway Mountain Drive

I just found out that it's now featured - CONGRATULATIONS!! I didn't know that effort was being put into improving the article to Good/Featured level. I have a bunch of photographs that I took on a clear day on August 26, 2010 that I'll upload since they look helpful. Photos include both endpoints (for the east endpoint I have great shots with 1) just Brockway & the sign and 2) the same plus M-26 in foreground - which should I upload?) I'll upload a clear view of the forest lining the valley and ridge to the south. I have another great one with some trees in the foreground with beautiful blue Lake Superior in the background along with a somewhat visible ocean liner. I have excellent shots of the signs at the rest stop at the peak which I would upload but I'm concerned if I infringe on someone's copyright. Perhaps I should email one shot to you if the written content may be usable to you for the article. The sunlight and angle was perfect. I took a photograph to the northwest but I didn't focus on the part with the lake to the west so it's not an improvement to what already is there. The western terminus shot was taken looking down the middle of a bridge and the sign is in the background. By the way, that bridge is listed on the National Register of Historic Places if that helps for the article.

On topic #2, I'll gone for one week in one month from now traveling to Traverse City and Mackinac City/Island. We'll be traveling to Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore and I'm sure we'll travel Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive. Any photo requests? Royalbroil 16:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Feel free to upload any additional photographs you have on BMD to either of the Commons categories for the road or the mountain. I want to swap back in a photo from the peak, but it was removed from the article during FAC because someone claimed (and I don't think it applies) that the county road commission would have a copyright on the content of the signage. I've gotten busy with other things, and I haven't called the road commission to see if the signs are older than 1978, which would render them public domain absent an affirmative copyright notice on the signs (which there isn't).

As for the SBNL and PSSD, if you're near Glen Haven, the M-209 article could use at least one photo of the roadway. Since M-209 was so short, one decent shot from the intersection with M-109 aimed down the length of the former M-209 to the former Coast Guard station should do the trick. Anything else you can add for M-109 or even M-22 would be great as well.

PSSD is on the agenda for expansion this year. It will be the selected article for Portal: Michigan Highways for August 2012, which means I have about a year to expand it and get it to GA. Any additional or improved photos are welcome for the Commons category on the roadway, and we can always swap out the photos as desired. Oh, I'm coming up short a bit on identifying some sources on PSSD, so if you find any good pamphlets, brochures or books on the roadway, that's great. You don't have to buy any books, just get titles/ISBNs so we can try to locate them at libraries. I'd like to find some more non-NPS sources, and ideally, I want to make a "junction list" for the article using the numbered scenic points/waypoints along the drive, but I'm having trouble getting distance information. I might have to do a table without distances because MDOT doesn't have the roadway on its maps because it isn't a through route nor is it maintained by MDOT, a county or a city. Google, et al., doesn't have it on their maps because it's not a through route either. Either way, if you spot any books in any park gift shops that look promising for PSSD information, write down the title information so we can find it through interlibrary loan.

If you have a chance to photograph anything along the former M-108 (Michigan highway) in Mackinaw City, maybe the welcome center there, that would be great. I know that any M-109 signage has been gone for a year now, but the road hasn't substantially changed since it was still a state highway.

M-185 is well-photographed already, but if you get better shots, or different shots, that's always welcome. I don't think there anything along the "backside" of the island near British Landing currently in the categories. Another thing, can you do a little research scouting for me on the island? Supposedly, based on comments from a contributor to the Great Lakes Roads Yahoo! Group, the Mackinac Island State Park Commission has changed M-185's mile markers, and eliminated the iconic brown wooden diamonds. If that's the case, can you photograph a few of them and maybe if you can, document which of the 8 markers have been changed or may be missing? MM 0 near the visitors center next to Marquette Park is probably unchanged according to the report, but the several of the others were changed to plain wooden rectangles. When I was there in 2009, all 8 were up (0–7), and they were all diamonds. If you're interested, later this summer or into the fall, I plan on overhauling the M-185 article a bit and sending it off to FAC as well. Imzadi 1979 → 17:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I printed your comments out to take along. I remember driving to those hotels that you talked about in Mackinaw City back in the early 2000s (I think 2004). I didn't have a camera then but I'll look just in case me or my party took a photo with our film camera. I doubt we'll walk to the back side of the island but you never know. I'll want to photograph the awesome hotel again. We were planning to drive the route that you outlined northwest of Traverse City like we did back in 2004! Royalbroil 04:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have revived this discussion because I have returned from Lower Michigan about 1 week ago. First topic - Washington Island. MM0 near the visitor center does still have the diamond brown sign and I have a photo. I decided to go for a walk while the rest of my party went through an attraction so I walked all the way to MM1. It was NOT the diamond sign - it was a plain wooden post and I have photos. I photographed and have already uploaded the remaining NRHP listings on the island (plus I greatly improved some). So beautiful!

On the mainland: My somewhat-dated GPS helped. It still listed M-108 in Mackinaw City so I took a bunch of photos. I had the map and my GPS agreed. I didn't see a welcome center and I drove the length of it. We also drove through Glen Haven and I photographed down M-209 just like you asked. I also took photos of M-109 and M-22. I am inundated with many 100s or maybe 1000 photos to identify, crop and upload - so don't expect much for a while. I haven't even went through them yet and I have little discretionary time during this time of the year. I went through the visitor center at Sleeping Bear Dunes HQ before driving the Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive. I added a list of potential sources on the article's talk page. I'll watch your talk page so you please respond here without leaving a notice. Royalbroil 15:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

re: HWY ACR

Hi! Thanks for the tip. I'm sure that will be a helpful resource. I expect to have more time to edit in a week, so I'll give it a try then. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I nearly forgot: Great work on the junctions template. One question though - is it possible to control size (width) of rendered image or not?--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a full-protected subtemplate that controls size. the default though is 20px in height. When I figure out what to do with that subtemplate, I had already planned on tweaking the size of the A/B markers. Imzadi 1979 → 18:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that produces neat signs in case of US highways for instance since they are squares, hence also 20px wide. Unfortunately most European road signs are not squares, rather wider than their height, producing considerable widths of the signs in RJL while maintaining the 20px height. It's not that problematic, but I was just wondering if that was possible to have them set at 20px wide or something like that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

20px in width would be too small to be legible. 20px in height approximates a line of text, which is why it's used for the US. There is a subtemplate that can be edited to change the sizes for Croatia, but I would advise against making the graphics any shorter in height than they already are now. Imzadi 1979 → 21:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. The shields are really much easier to read this way.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cite map

Hi there. It would be nice to complete the discussion and move forward with this. I believe the ball is in your hands. Best regards.--Muhandes (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for M-78 (Michigan highway)

Orlady (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits on County Road 42 (Minnesota)

Thanks for the edits on County Road 42 (Minnesota). I have not been on Wikipedia for a long time and don't know much about the Major Intersections table, so thanks for fixing it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Back to the Past 23 (talk • contribs) 14:12, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Meetup

Hi Imzadi, I would love meet you. I am currently in San Jose for an assignment. Is it possible to meet you or anyone Road project ? --naveenpf (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm clear across the country in Michigan, about 2,000 miles (3,200 km) away, and none of our active project members are in that area, sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 17:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Linked Headings

Please don't think that I am dumb, but why shouldn't headings be linked?

Thank you for bettering my knowledge of Wikipedia!

Allen (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is according to the advice at MOS:HEAD, which is the section of the Manual of Style that governs such things. I do believe that it's more that you should have the link in the body of the text under the heading and that links in headings can cause problems with some screen readers or other adaptive technologies. Imzadi 1979 → 22:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Interstate Highways in Texas at WP:TFL submissions

Hi Imzadi1979, hope you are well. Your nomination of List of Interstate Highways in Texas at WP:TFL has gathered some support, the only outstanding issue is the inclusion of alt text. If you would be kind enough to look into that and reply at the nomination page, I'll move it over to the queue for the main page. Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that ALT text was ever required, only suggested and I haven't been watching that page in months. What needs it? the blurb? the list article itself? I thought I had stated that I was not a regular editor of the page and was only an interested WikiProject member who thought that this list would be good to include once TFL went live. Imzadi 1979 → 18:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we try to add alt text wherever possible. It's a little undefined, but at the very least, each image should have a alt= parameter added to it. Also, just a description of what you see in the image could be added after the alt= if you feel able. It's straightforward enough but it needs to come from someone who knows what each image depicts. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I know what ALT text is, FAC used to require it and ditched that requirement, which is why I thought it was totally optional but heavily suggested. Now, are you referring to the list article itself or the blurb? Imzadi 1979 → 18:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for asking. FLC heavily suggest it still, in both blurb and article (no point in having it in just one of them). Thanks anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It is done because I figured no one would get it right within W3C guidelines since most people think you need to write ALT text such that a person on the other side of a telephone conversation who can't see it could draw the image out from the description, which is way too excessive. Imzadi 1979 → 19:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

George Washington Memorial Parkway

George Washington Memorial Parkway is tagged for cleanup but there is nothing on the talk page about what it needs. Could you take a look at it and see if it looks OK or make some notes about what it needs? RJFJR (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops

I thought he/she was trying to remove an images from that articles, because you know it just appear in text format in (HG). Thank you for reminding me. Sean ^{(Ask Me?)} 02:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You have been doing a "bust-up" job editing highway articles. If only I could do just as great a job as you. Allen (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Protected images

Hello Imzadi. I have responded to a message you left a year ago. See Wikipedia talk:High-risk templates#Protect templates and images.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

M-96 (Michigan highway) now a GA

SCB '92 (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

I have uploaded the new versions of the Toll Texas shields to Commons, and reverted the ones I changed back to the blue-on-white versions. I'll leave implementation to you and the rest of WP:USR. Thanks again! -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

FAC review

Hi -- whenever it's convenient for you could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brain/archive4 to see whether your concerns have been addressed? No huge hurry, it's certainly going to be running for a few more days at least, just whenever you have time. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wacker Drive

Lower Wacker Drive is considered an expressway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So? It's not under state-maintenance which is the where we normally draw the scope line between USRD and USST. Imzadi 1979 → 01:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

M-34 (Michigan highway) at GAN

Hello, Imzadi. I reviewed the article, and the comments can be viewed here. It's not too much; the article's almost to GA. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Italics for former bannered routes

Did you notice the italics on former bannered routes shown here? That was the same reason I italicized the former routes on US 27 in Florida. ----DanTD (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That another article breaks the MOS is not an excuse for a specific article to break it. Anyway, lists are a bit different creatures, and when I get around to overhauling the MI lists (Interstate, US, state), I plan on putting former highways on gray backgrounds instead of using the deprecated, MOS-violating italics. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your message to me, I'm not the only person who has been italicizing the former routes, and I not only didn't believe that was a violation of the MOS, I thought it was the MOS. If you're looking to create a new standard for distinguishing former routes with gray backgrounds, it ought to be brought up on WP:USRoads. As far as the multiple Florida SR stubs go, one unfortunate fact about the Florida State Road articles is that many of them are stubs because the roads themselves are short. You've got roads in places like Gainseville, Ocala, and Metro Miami that only exist within the city limits(and I'm not talking about former state roads here). That's part of the reason I've held back a couple of road articles. ----DanTD (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Other issues about US 27 in Florida

I also see that you made a small infobox for Florida State Road 63 in the US 27 (FL) article. Have you considered another for Florida State Road 57 for US 19 in Florida? ----DanTD (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't because I wasn't watching nor really paying attention to US 19. US 27 used to extend to MI, so I tend to pay a bit of a attention when other state-detail articles for it pop up on my radar. Imzadi 1979 → 00:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: M-6 (Michigan highway)

This is a note to let the main editors of M-6 (Michigan highway) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 20, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 20, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

M-6 is a 19.7-mile (31.7 km) freeway that serves portions of southern Kent and eastern Ottawa counties south of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Initially opened to traffic on November 20, 2001, the roadway connects Interstate 196 on the west with Interstate 96 on the east while running through several townships on the south side of the Grand Rapids metropolitan area. Each end is in a rural area while the central section has suburban development along the highway. The freeway was originally conceived in the 1960s, and it took 32 years to approve, plan, finance, and build M-6 from the time that the state first authorized funding in 1972 to the time the full highway opened to traffic in 2004. Initial construction started in November 1997, with the first phase opened in 2001 and the remainder in November 2004. The project was built with two firsts: the first single-point urban interchange in the state, and a new technique to apply the pavement markings, embedding them into the concrete to reduce the chance of a snowplow scraping them off. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Highway centerlines, part deux

Hi Imzadi, I left a message for you at the Graphic Lab. Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)