text:
anything because many USRD regulars did not want to get involved, so there went consensus; 1 support and 1 oppose is not consensus. I also don't think that we should be telling people to "Never use that argument here again." --Rschen7754 20:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on. A problem I'm finding is that the light purple colors I proposed are too close to the reddish color used for incomplete movements. If we were to go much darker, we would have to make the row text white to be WP:COLOR compliant. –Fredddie™ 15:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We could change the the incomplete movements color. Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We could use a blue color for something. –Fredddie™ 01:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think would be too close... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The color-blind might have trouble with this, but I think they'll have trouble to some extent no matter what we do. --Rschen7754 08:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is exposing a reason why it is not a good idea to use colors in our junction lists.  Dough 48  72  15:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:RJL and MOS:COLOR: "Color should not be the only method to impart the information. For the benefit of colorblind readers or persons using screen readers, the Notes or Destination column(s) must include the information." and "Do not use color alone to mark differences in text." So this "problem" was already dealt with by requiring the notes column to repeat and expand on the information being imparted by the colors.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel it is redundant to have both the notes and the colors. Personally, I see the colors as redundant to the notes.  Dough 48  72  17:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And you keep interjecting comments against an allowed, optional, practice when we're discussing amending that. If you're so opposed to the usage of colors, don't use them in the articles you work on, but please stop using any discussion related to tweaking the practice as a soapbox to get them removed from other article. Thanks.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we get back to the point? We have three options on the table: Add/don't add an ETC Color, Change the colors for Incomplete access and what color to make the ETC one. My thought is just adopt a color that we can agree on that is a lighter shade of purple and doesn't interfere with the eyes. Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 23:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Since the MUTCD already makes the Purple=ETC connection, it's a natural candidate for the color choice. If we want to take the opportunity to deal with HOV-/HOT-only situations, we can as well.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a change to the Jctint/core sandbox to give us some flexibility for adding colors in the future. –Fredddie™ 00:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, any other thoughts? Don't want this discussion going dead. Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 22:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Support both colors just to get things moving. --Rschen7754 19:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We do not need colors for everything. The current assortment of colors is fine.  Dough 48  72  20:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but per the talkpage banner, we should put up a notice on WT:RJL. –Fredddie™ 00:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It only affects the US though, so does it matter? --Rschen7754 01:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a junction list standard that we're discussing. Also, I don't see how getting input from people outside North America could ever be a bad thing. –Fredddie™ 01:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should go to WT:RJL. --  LJ  ↗  21:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Crossposted there. --Rschen7754 21:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support color #dcdcfe for ETC-only ramps. This would only be in cases where a route has certain exits that are ETC-only, not to color an entire table purple if every interchange is ETC-only or every interchange has ETC lanes with other options. Additionally, I'd support using this as a background color for a jctbridge-type entry for mainline toll barriers on ETC-only highways. --  LJ  ↗  21:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since uses  just like all the other -family templates, this will work right away. –Fredddie™ 14:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We ready to go then? Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 10:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so. I will check the sandbox one more time to make sure we're good to go. –Fredddie™ 14:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes.  can be copied to .  After that's done,  should be semi-protected per WP:HRT. –Fredddie™ 15:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Georgia State Routes?
Is there a reliable source for a list of all of the current state highways in the state of Georgia? I have noticed that some of the state route articles don't currently exist, and I want to eliminate the red links. Thanks! Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would poke around on the Georgia DOT site and see if you can find something. If I get time I might take another look, grad school's starting to catch up to me. --Rschen7754 07:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

IRC!
Just another reminder that our IRC chat channel is always open, and there's people in it frequently (the best times are afternoons and evenings US time). I'll be inviting the newer users on their talk pages, but anyone is welcome! --Rschen7754 07:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

ACR statistics
Thanks to everyone who's been helping out at ACR! We still have quite a backlog, with 7 ACRs open, and up to 5 potential nominees coming shortly. --Rschen7754 08:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Pre-FLC reviews at ACR?
I'm not at all proposing we add an A-Class List assessment like WP:MILHIST has, but do you think it would be a good idea to take any potential FLC-bound lists through ACR before going to FLC? –Fredddie™ 03:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually thought we did this already... and then I realized we didn't. I would actually propose adding an A-Class List assessment, just so people feel like they're earning something by going through ACR. It would also help with our high fail rate at FLC. --Rschen7754 03:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * At some point, I think we should emulate the model used by MILHIST, which has CL-, BL-, and AL-Classes to parallel C-, B-, and A-Classes for articles. (They use List-Class as the parallel to Start-Class and assume that until an article is developed past the Stub-Class stage that's it's not possible to determine if an article will be a list or not. We already know which topics will be lists.) That plus reviewing lists at ACR to award AL-Class status as a preparation for FLC would be a good start. We could even amend and expand on our WikiWork system to track list progress at some point.
 * To summarize, let's implement AL-Class and work backwards down the scale first to implement the other parallel classes.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose BL and CL might be good in the future, but let's work on AL first, IMHO. By the way, we probably need a discussion at WT:HWY for the ACR part, since that's no longer under USRD. If Canada, the UK, or India want into the AL classification, they'll probably need a discussion there too. --Rschen7754 06:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the implementation of a formal A-Class List Review and the AL class. We should start the formation by figuring out what our criteria should be and testing those criteria with one of our existing Featured Lists. Once we get ACLR going, we should implement a BL Class. I do not think we need three list classes below AL; List, BL, and AL should be sufficient gradation.  V C  17:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how this would work out. While articles on individual roads and interchanges have more or less the same structure, the layout of lists widely varies based on the scope of an individual list - and that's completely fine. I'd have to see the proposed assessment criteria before I can support this concept. Even then, VC's idea of only a handful of "upper-tier" classes makes more sense: some lists will never reach FL status, and, again, that's completely fine in my book. I can think of a few lists where the amount of stuff that would need to be added for FLC would basically render the list useless for one reason or another. –  T M F  (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't looking to implement A-Class Lists, but it appears consensus is here to do something. WP:MILHIST is the only project that I can think of that has A-Class Lists (they call it AL-Class).  Are there others?  We could compare and contrast what they all do and come up with our own criteria. –Fredddie™ 23:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to the events happening in the greater Wikipedia
Many of us are aware of the chaotic events that have been happening over the last few weeks on Wikipedia. Those of us in the IRC channel are monitoring those events, and I am participating in many of the discussions, but as far as we know, this will not affect the roads projects in general. Ever since 2008, we have kept the drama far from our doorsteps, with only a few minor incidents here and there. We have enough administrators to deal with the project's needs, and a few editors who would probably pass RFA if we need more, so we don't need to worry about administrators leaving en masse. Please shoot me an email if you have any questions or concerns. --Rschen7754 04:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Interstate 96 issue
A user insists on adding a nonstandard section to the I-96 article called "I-96 Sniper". Your comments would be appreciated. --Rschen7754 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A-List discussion
Trying to restart the A-List discussion here since it got archived...

Why don't we adopt the Featured list criteria, since FLC is the end goal of an A-List? --Rschen7754 07:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an idea we can work with.  Dough 48  72  13:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Georgia state routes concerns
I have been looking at the Georgia County Maps, and I have come across some routes on them that are not on the List of numbered highways in Georgia (U.S. state) page. There are the normal alternate, business, bypass, connector, loop, and spur routes, however, there are also some state routes that have "CW", "DU", "EA", "LO", "SE", "SO", "TA", and "WE" suffixes on them. Can someone tell me what these road abbreviations are? Also, the "List" page above only has the routes numbered 1-388, some 400-series routes, and a few 500-series routes. On the GDOT maps, there are routes in the 700-, 800-, 900-, 1000-, 1100-, and 1200-series. What is up with that? Since the GDOT doesn't have a route log, this is very confusing. There is also confusion over roads listed as either future or future alignments. Some are broken into as many as 5+ segments; some are less than a mile long. Thank you for your help. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Can you be more specific where these marked highways are? I wonder if those two-letter abbreviations might have something to do with the counties they are in. ("CW" = Coweta? "EA" = Early?) And are the higher numbers in rural or urban areas?  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 16:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

 * This document shows the legislation designating some local roads as Georgia state roads with some of those odd letter suffixes, but it does not explain those suffixes.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 22:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Nice find, Michael. If I'm reading the document and interpreting the maps correctly, GDOT projects are assigned a temporary route number, whether or not the project is located on a state highway.  Since they're temporary, I don't think it would be wise to include them (routes numbered over 700) on the state route list.  I do think the fact that temporary route numbers are assigned is worth mentioning, however. –Fredddie™ 23:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I want to say that I don't like my reply (or my re-reply, for that matter) being removed (for little or no reason). Michael J asked me a question (see second "thought" above), and I thought the easiest way to answer him was to paste my researched route log in the edit box.
 * Second, what exactly is that PDF document supposed to show (related to my original question above)? I would like to re-write the "List of numbered highways in Georgia (U.S. state)" page, including all of the state routes. If there is any way that I could do that, could you please help me? Thank you. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A 30kb text dump is generally not useful, either on this talk page or for the purposes of creating/improving upon any related subset of articles. As suggested in this edit summary, it would be helpful to have this in a sandbox or similar appropriate subpage for reference. -- Kinu  t/c 00:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, remember that everything left on here is archived for the bot. Those archives are searchable, and each one is of a limited size. 30K isn't near the size, but it goes a long way toward filling a single archive page.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Your list is now here. You should concentrate on all of the permanent routes.  You're tilting at windmills if you think including the temporary routes on the list is a good idea.  Secondly, that document shows that route numbers are assigned to projects and that they are indeed temporary. –Fredddie™ 00:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Allen (Morriswa), I appreciate the effort you put into posting that list, although I was only expecting a couple of examples, so that I might look at a few of the counties and see if I could find a pattern. Thank you.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

ACR backlog
This is the monthly reminder that we need reviewers at ACR! We're at 7 articles now, and more are definitely on the way! --Rschen7754 03:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Exits posted on non-Interstates in Ohio
So I and an anonymous poster have been posting newly-posted exit numbers on the exit list on Ohio State Route 2. I have been putting "citation needed" templates next to each of them since there isn't really a direct source yet, but it's starting to look silly (I didn't just put "cn" in the column header because I-90's exit numbers where SR-2 runs with it are also listed). It's been noted with a RS that Ohio has started to do this (Exit numbers in the United States, although the source is inaccessible to the general public now) and I even just found an internal ODOT source via a Google search which reaffirms that and even tells how to calculate exit numbers for this particular posting activity (Project 113004 Addendum: Q/A 25, 5/27/11), but I haven't found an ODOT document which lists specific numbers, and I don't anticipate one anytime soon since they even overtly identify that their Interstate exit guide is no longer being updated. Are we really going to have to wait for the first edition of the Ohio Transportation Map with these identified, assuming that they ever are, to remove the "cn"? If I understand WP:RS and WP:SYNTH, unfortunately I don't know of any way to be able to list them until then. Mapsax (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would remove the "citation needed" templates because, as you say, they look silly. I have no problem with leaving the exit numbers there without a source for now because I do not think this information is controversial. If someone complains, we can revisit this and figure out the best way to cite the existence of the exit numbers in the article. In the meantime, please place a note like the above on the article's talk page so someone who goes to that talk page but not this talk page will be able to learn about this issue.  V C  15:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally, geographic information isn't considered controversial enough to require a cite, since it could be verified by visiting the actual feature as a last resort. We generally don't cite the text of guide signs, for example. If you really want to include a reference, though, you might try to find a non-ODOT map showing them (I imagine this may be difficult if they are only a few months old, but one of the online map vendors might have added them). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't put anything on the talk page, but I did put a link back to here (valid until this hits the archives) in the edit note. Would a mention on the talk pages of List of numbered highways in Ohio or List of State Routes in Ohio go unnoticed? Mapsax (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

US elections
A lot of us will be hanging out on IRC tomorrow night as the election results come in and you're welcome to sign in! For more information on connecting, see WP:HWY/IRC. Warning: it might get a bit crazy. :) --Rschen7754 19:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Number of junctions in Infobox Major Intersections list
I just realized that I have been adding way too many intersections into the Georgia State Route articles, at least when based on the standard for that section found on this page. Having said that, would someone be able to explain to me the reasoning behind the 10 or fewer intersections, especially on state routes?

For anyone who has driven any state routes, especially ones not in urban areas, any intersection with another state route is a significant event. In addition, it is often at these intersections that a route's direction may change, a concurrency starts, or that the route will intersect a community worth bringing to the attention of the reader. One could argue that all of these intersections could be mentioned in the Route Description, but descriptive text is harder to digest than a good listing of intersections in the Infobox.

In other words, I am arguing that ALL intersections with any route of equal or higher status should be listed in the Infobox. Therefore, on a Georgia State Route, all intersections with other state routes, US highways, and Interstates should be listed, IMHO.

Comments? Thank you! Concertmusic (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The limit is arbitrary, but for a good reason. The infobox is supposed to be a short summary of the route. When you start adding too many junctions, the infobox gets longer and longer, and becomes useless. We decided to cut it off at 10 before we got super-long infoboxes (see California State Route 99 for an example of a route that could have an infobox overrun by junctions). --Rschen7754 19:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I should have included a recent example to better illustrate my point. Having said that, few state routes in Georgia should have many more than the junctions listed in this article: Georgia State Route 30.  Certainly too much by the standards - but really bad, or bearable?  I have stopped adding every SR for now - FYI. Concertmusic (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's way too much. The infobox is longer than the article! One of the reasons we do this is because WP:FAC will never accept anything like this. --Rschen7754 19:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well. I personally err on the side of too much info, but can certainly see the point. I will finish going through the GA SRs, and will fix the ones I have overdone next week. Concertmusic (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In the Georgia State Route 30 example, if you included only junctions with Interstate or U.S. routes, it gets you down to 11 which is probably acceptable. In other cases you may have to make judgement calls. I would suggest keeping junctions with all Interstate and U.S. routes, and if there is room add a handful of selected state routes.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the Major intersections table in road articles is to show all notable intersections, which is all Interstates, U.S. Highways, state highways, and any other notable junctions. The list in the infobox should, in effect, be a summary of such a table that shows the most important junctions and/or locations. You should use the list of intersections you put in the infobox of the Georgia State Route 30 article and transform that into a USRD-standard Major intersections table. There are plenty of examples of Georgia state route articles with these Major intersection tables. I recommend looking at Georgia State Route 40 (a short example), U.S. Route 17 in Georgia (a moderate example), and U.S. Route 280 (a long example). Because US 280 runs concurrently with Georgia State Route 30 for much of its length, you can cut and paste a lot of it into the state route article.  V C  21:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please transform that long infobox jct list to a major intersections table, as VC suggests. That will make the article comply with standards--adding the major intersections section will turn the article into a decent start class instead of a stub.
 * The general guideline I use on Nevada SR articles for what junctions I list in the infobox is to only include junctions with US or Interstate highways and not other state routes (except I will sometimes include junctions with primary SRs if they are really important, such as being on the NHS). But overall, it's a gauge and balance based on the length of the route and number of (important) junctions. --  LJ  ↗  02:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, the selection of what routes should be included in the infobox depend on the type of route. For national-detail articles of long cross-country routes, only junctions with Interstates ending in 0 or 5 should be included. For shorter national-detail articles, only junctions with Interstates should be included. For cross-state routes, only Interstate and U.S. routes should be included. For shorter routes within a state, Interstate, U.S., and state route junctions should be included up to a limit of 10 junctions. The process of determining which junctions make the cut is subjective, but is the best that can be done. For some states, other routes can be included, such as named toll roads and parkways or the 500-series county routes in New Jersey, which are part of a statewide system.  Dough 48  72  19:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It should ^ not be a strict rule to include junctions by type of route, though. Proper research must be done so as not to omit the occasional state route that might be at or near Interstate standards. (As was NY 17 until its recent re-designation.)  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 02:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of a hard and fast rule here. Just use your best judgment and apply WP:BRD as necessary. –Fredddie™ 15:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These are guidelines, not rules... and the guidelines exist for important reasons, but they aren't set in stone. The goal is to keep the infobox from being longer than the article without using a collapsing section. M-28 (Michigan highway) intersects or runs concurrently with around a dozen state highways and another eight major county roads or federal forest highways that warrant inclusion in its junction list. For the infobox, I limited it to the termini, the lone Interstate, the US Highways and M-35. Grand total of six junctions and the termini for 290 miles. The infobox is about the same length as the lead and ToC on a printed page.  Imzadi 1979  →   15:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I goofed. I meant to say not a strict rule, but I inadvertently left out the word "not". Sorry.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 02:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate all of the comments provided. I think I will finish the cleanup of the remaining Georgia State Routes, then go back through and clean up the Infoboxes where I added too much content.  As much as I'd like to add the Major Intersections section to the body of many of these articles, I don't have access to an approved mile post data source - Google appears to be frowned upon, and GeoTRAQS is not working for me at all.  I should have the cleanup completed by the end of the week with any luck. Concertmusic (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You can always add the section without the mileposts, add mileposts and someone else can add them.  Imzadi 1979  →   13:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's okay to add the junction list without milepost data. There are very few Nevada articles with complete (or partial) milepost information, since NDOT hasn't made milepost information as readily available as other state DOTs have. If the article is still in developing stages, not having specific milepost data listed is usually fine--going to FA/A/GA status would be another story. --  LJ  ↗  09:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Assistance with an ACR needed
May 13, 2012, will mark the centennial since the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System was created. That article is at WP:HWY/ACR, but we've never had an article on a whole highway system go up that far on the scale, so I'm inviting project members to participate in the ACR to make suggestions in terms of content and organization before we do the usual review process to look at prose, sources/sourcing, images and the like. My personal goal is to take the article to WP:FAC early next year so that it can run as WP:TFA on the anniversary.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

AWB requests
I've had people make requests for me to do AWB jobs as one of the few USRD editors who has access to the tool and knows how to use it. I've started a new requests page at User:Rschen7754/AWB. --Rschen7754 23:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Nebraska State Highways
I was just on the NDOR log book and all the highways in Nebraska are listed as "State Highways". Therefore, I personally think all of them should be renamed from Nebraska Highway X to Nebraska State Highway X. Also, Connecting Links and Spurs are listed as State Connecting Links and State Spurs, respectively. It seem to me they should all be renamed. DandyDan2007 (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: moved above from the Nebraska archives. --Rschen7754 23:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to stick it on the Nebraska page, but while there is a Nebraska archive page, there is no Nebraska page, which doesn't make sense to me. DandyDan2007 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In January all state highway WikiProjects were demoted to task forces (except New York), and all task force talk pages were redirected here. --Rschen7754 23:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, any comments? --Rschen7754 23:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The log also seems to abbreviate the state highways as "N-XX"...so a potential thing to look out for if renaming occurs. Other than that, the request seems logical. --  LJ  ↗  09:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think N-XX is just an abbreviation and not the name of the highway like in Kansas or Michigan. –Fredddie™ 23:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Has anyone done searches for how often various formulations come up on the Internet in general and in news articles? How do the state's newspapers refer to the state-numbered highways?  V C  18:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This article on the Omaha World-Herald website shows Nebraska Highway X. -happy5214 19:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's always the chance that the Omaha World-Herald checked us to see what to call their state highways... –Fredddie™ 23:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just did this search. –Fredddie™ 23:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that include Wikipedia mirrors? --Rschen7754 00:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It probably does; I didn't check the results. –Fredddie™ 00:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754/How to review road articles
I have written this guide to help new reviewers, and new editors who want to bring their articles to ACR. Let me know if you have anything to add! --Rschen7754 09:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Multiple notes for an exit should be separated with semicolons. Is that right? I would have thought that if notes do not form a complete sentence, they should be comma separated. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, semicolons are correct. --Rschen7754 19:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. These should have links to the relevant MOS sections; otherwise, they seem like arbitrary personal preferences of random FAC reviewers (i.e., things you don't really need to fix). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see about adding that. --Rschen7754 09:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Interstate 49
The I-49 designation is going live in Missouri on December 12. I have just created Interstate 49 in Missouri, although it still needs some work (mainly a route description). If someone has some time, Interstate 49 in Louisiana will need to be created, and then Interstate 49 cleaned up to more closely resemble a main article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Junction list threshhold
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is there a limit to how long a route should be before it switches from a -style list to a bulleted list? –Fredddie™ 03:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Typically bulleted lists are only for articles like Interstate 5 where there are state-detailed articles for each state, or for former routes where a junction list would be impractical. --Rschen7754 03:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I get that. Take a look at U.S. Route 129.  It has S-D articles, but it is short enough that it could use jctint. –Fredddie™ 16:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would only include bulleted lists for Interstate and U.S. routes that have state-detail pages.  Dough 48  72  17:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * With that said, I've never liked the bulleted list for a major intersections list. It seems inconsistent and unprofessional looking. What's wrong with converting these to a table? Dave (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A table with all junctions would not work for a cross-country highway. I suppose we can use a major intersections table with only the major intersections in a national-detail article.  Dough 48  72  18:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The detail that comes with our typical jct table entries would look out of place and vastly incomplete if placed in the national article with not every junction or exit listed. There's gotta be some middle ground in providing more detail but not resulting to use of an standard but incomplete table. --  LJ  ↗  09:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking using the same format as our exit list, but perhaps with a different header, or an additional header to explain this is "major junctions only". I'm not advocating lengthening the articles or cluttering it in any way with additional junctions. My only point is that IMO the bullet list looks unprofessional for this use (I think it works fine for external links and see also, but not this). Dave (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the bullets do look unprofessional. --Rschen7754 00:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

To avoid bullets, maybe something like this could be done?
 * Texas
 * Interstate 10 in San Antonio
 * Interstate 20 in Dallas
 * Interstate 30 in Dallas

 * Oklahoma
 * Interstate 40 in Oklahoma City
 * Interstate 44 in Oklahoma City

 * Kansas
 * Interstate 135 in Wichita

 * Missouri
 * Interstate 70 in Kansas City
 * Interstate 29 in Kansas City

 * Iowa
 * Interstate 80 in Des Moines

This uses the semicolon-generated definition list format. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. --Rschen7754 10:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Falls in line with the KISS principle, too. –Fredddie™ 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Much cleaner. Having the state header also reduces the repetition of having the state listed with the city.  Dough 48  72  02:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this format, as long as this use of bolding passes muster. An update or addendum to WP:RJL will be needed, as that currently specifies the use of bullets for these lists. --  LJ  ↗  09:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we need a cross-post there. I was going to bring this up but it's been a crazy last few days.... --Rschen7754 09:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we want to include shields on each line? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can go either way on that, but lean towards leaving them off and formatting exactly as above. One other thought: I feel that on our national summary articles, we should be linking to the other national articles in the junction lists and infoboxes--so if shields are used, can the text link be to the national article instead of the state-detail articles? This will keep the shields with uniform appearance (as some states use different icon designs in the jct template, based on that state's Interstate and US route shield design). --  LJ  ↗  02:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The text link can be to the national article instead of the state-detail articles using the jct template. You would use to get:
 * in Dallas
 * I am not sure how you would code the template to use the full name (Interstate 20), if that is our desire. Following the sig is a mock-up of the above using jct. For 3dis whose numbers are used multiple times (which I-135 is not), the state-specific one should be coded; otherwise, it goes to a dab page, as you can see with I-235.  V C  22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Texas
 * in San Antonio
 * in Dallas
 * in Dallas

 * Oklahoma
 * in Oklahoma City
 * ] in Oklahoma City

 * Kansas
 * in Wichita

 * Missouri
 * in Kansas City
 * in Kansas City

 * Iowa
 * in Des Moines
 * in Des Moines

Cross post done, but folks, anyone can do this next time; it shouldn't have had to wait for close to 48 hours. --Rschen7754 05:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so what are people's opinions re shields? I'm okay with it either way. --Rschen7754 01:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I could go either way. –Fredddie™ 03:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can go either way as well, and I think the shields are fine. --  LJ  ↗  22:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm explicitly voting for shields using jct to break the deadlock. Any other thoughts? --Rschen7754 08:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm voting for jct too, for consistency with the tables in the state-detail articles and the infobox.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I do not care whether we use shields or not.  Dough 48  72  16:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newsletter time!
It's that time of the year where we do the newsletter! If you want to write a super cool story, or you want to share what's going on in your state, feel free to do so! WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Newsroom is the place. Please submit stuff within the next week. Thanks! --Rschen7754 08:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Scenic highways and infoboxes
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I want to throw it out there. For scenic highway articles, I'd like to propose dropping the requirement (tacit or otherwise) that it have an infobox if there is, or could be, a decent lead image. Let me be clear, I am not proposing banning them altogether on scenic highways. To do this, I would also propose the following guidelines: 1) The image would be 300 pixels wide (the width of a standard infobox), 2) Portrait orientation would be preferred (will look bigger), 3) No SVG shield graphics or April Fool's Day nominees, and 4) Bonus points for recognized works (QI or WP:FP). –Fredddie™ 08:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think we should use infoboxes in scenic highway articles as they are still roads. An alternate idea to using infobox road in the traditional sense is to either add modifications to infobox road that could be used for scenic highways or to create a new infobox called infobox scenic highway. The modified or new infobox could have special parameters that are unique to scenic highways and could also allow for scenic images to be incorporated into the infobox.  Dough 48  72  02:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Directions of Highway
There are many highways whose inventory directions are different from their signed directions. That is, a route may run northwest–southeast on a map, and be inventoried from south to north in the state highway department log books, but is signed east–west. I was wondering (1) whether it is more prudent to produce road junction lists and route descriptions in the inventory direction or the signed direction—we typically write those article sections south to north and west to east—for cases where inventory and signage conflict; and (2) how to reference signage directions, which is necessary for upper class articles if we state something like "Route X is signed east–west."  V C  04:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've always thought that it is better to present the major intersections/junctions in the west-to-east or south-to-north order for overall consistency's sake, than to disrupt the normal flow of an article solely to put junctions in numerical order by milepost. If it is possible to reference a state route log or other document to indicate signed direction, then that would be helpful. --  LJ  ↗  22:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I stick with south-north or west-east based on signage, regardless of what the mileposts do. I add a note to indicate this quirk. See Atlantic City Expressway and Delaware Route 52 as examples.  Dough 48  72  02:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The first question has been answered, and most or all of us think we should use signed direction instead of inventory direction when the two conflict. However, the second question has not been answered. Keep in mind usage of the term "mileposts." There is a difference between mileage numbers from a document and mileposts physically placed along highways. The former are just numbers; it is not considered original research to use simple math to "flip" the mileposts. Mileposts along a highway cannot be flipped; we should go with the direction of those mileposts if there is a conflict.  V C  16:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Most route logs inventory the mileage of the route in the same direction at the mileposts placed along the highway. I still say we stick to the south-north and west-east convention, even if the mileposts are north-south or east-west. The mileage can always be listed in decreasing order as in the two examples I provided. We should keep consistent with the directions our highway articles are written in.  Dough 48  72  16:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * M-115 physically runs northwest–southeast, it's signed north–south but inventoried west-to-east. The article treats it as a north–south highway and makes a note of the reverse inventory. This seems like a sensible approach to take.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

ACR
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 * Goal to have all ACRs finished in a month. --Rschen7754 02:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I like this. Another solution may be to put a cap on the number of active ACRs going at once. –Fredddie™ 02:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, without any queue we could wind up with a starvation issue... --Rschen7754 02:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I would propose creating an ACR queue. For the sake of argument, let's say the ACR limit is 4 articles (completely arbitrary, but I want to illustrate my point).  With the help of a template, only 4 ACRs could be open and visible on WP:HWY/ACR.  More ACRs could be added to the template (same idea as transcluding to the page now), but until the first four are cleared, they would only appear in a list of upcoming discussions.  Now, this would not forbid someone from creating the ACR subpage.  Then we institute a rule or strong urging that says we don't discuss pending ACRs until they are in the top four. –Fredddie™ 03:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But then what would happen is that some of us would go ahead and put 6-10 articles on the queue since there's a waiting list, and anyone who wanted to submit a new one and didn't have one on there already would have to wait months to get started. --Rschen7754 03:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First we shame the user for clogging up the queue, then we allow the person who has the one article to jump in front. We're all (mostly) adults, so there should be some commons sense involved here, too.  User:Fredddie/ACR is a proof of concept I have devised. –Fredddie™ 04:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support a queueing system that allows only one article per nominator to be in the current discussions. --Rschen7754 04:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I also support a queueing system that allows one article per nominator in the publicized discussions. Whether that number is four, five, six, or something else can be figured out later based on the number of editors who constantly have an article ready to send to ACR. However, I think we should maintain a separate queue for articles like Kansas Turnpike that are already a Featured Article and are being reviewed to improve the article to modern standards. There is less urgency to get these articles through ACR because the standard rules do not apply and the article is not headed to FAC afterward.  V C  15:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did update my template example to allow for a special discussion. Frankly, I don't ever see us having more than one special case like the Kansas Turnpike at a time. –Fredddie™ 13:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Folks, ACR isn't a USRD-only process anymore. Short of making commitments to review articles faster, any discussion about changing the ACR process needs to happen over at WT:HWY or WT:HWY/ACR, or a set of cross posts need to happen to give the non-USRD members of HWY and other sister project a chance to weigh in.
 * Really, I have a bunch of thoughts and ideas, but the problem isn't the number of open reviews, it's the number of open reviews that have been open for weeks waiting for comments. The 14-day minimum open period is a joke because that much time normally elapses between the conclusion of one review and the commencement of another. Whether the backlog piles up in the open discussion area or a waiting area, it will still pile up if items aren't moved through expeditiously. That said, I don't want us to sacrifice quality for speed. We have a decent reputation at work right now where some FACs are passing, in large part, on the strength of the ACR comments being referenced in support statements. I'd like to see us pick up the pace, but avoid getting the assembly line out of control like on the "Job Switching" episode of I Love Lucy.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 * You may have noticed already, but I did crosspost this last night. –Fredddie™ 13:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the backlog at ACR, I support a plan to limit a user to one ACR at a time, much like what is in place at FAC. However, we need to grandfather the ones already there. If we implement such a system, any user who has one or more articles currently at ACR can have that many there, but cannot nominate any new ACRs until they are all closed.  Dough 48  72  21:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about this for the last few days, and something needs to be done about ACR. Articles are taking upwards of two months to get through there; moreover, it's because they're sitting idle for six weeks of those two months. This is clearly not acceptable; if FAC can pass articles in four weeks, why do we have to take longer?

I support putting an upper limit on the number of nominations (I'd suggest 4), and I also support an upper limit on the number of nominations (1). I know that I'm planning to send tons of articles to ACR over the next few months, and this is going to hurt me a bit in the short-term, as it will any editor in my position.

However, I am supporting this proposal as that's what I believe is best for the roads project. There are three primary reasons why I am supporting this and believe this:
 * Perceived fairness: so nominators cannot clog the process with tons of A-Class articles, all from the same nominator. I think that this may be one of the biggest factors in the reticence for editors to participate in today's ACR - people feel it's one or two editors nominating all the other articles and increasing the backlog while nobody else benefits. People haven't told me why they're reluctant to review, but my hunch is that this is a factor. Moreover, this gets editors with not as much experience writing A-Class articles a chance to try sooner rather than later, so that they are not discouraged by a 10-article backlog and having to wait several months for the process to conclude.
 * Forces more editors to engage: if there is a backlog, then the nominators waiting have motivation to review standing articles already. I've seen a palpable lack of participation from a few nominators compared to their choice to participate in the process by nominating articles. Meanwhile, the same few editors are reviewing every article; I am one of them, and I'm getting a bit burned out and might be letting things slip that I would otherwise catch. But if I don't review every article, we have to wait for another reviewer, when we already have trouble filling the other three slots and might add another few weeks to the review time.
 * Priority to older nominations: I've seen a lot of very new nominations get passed at ACR before older ones, even if the newer nomination is a longer article than some of the older articles. This is obviously not fair. This, I also believe, will focus all the reviews on the four oldest nominations, so statistically speaking, there's a lower expected value of the time it takes to get the four required reviews to pass. I think this will help to guarantee that our articles get to FAC in a timely manner without decreasing quality.

If we do this, however, we need a firm inactivity rule. Right now, it doesn't really matter if someone takes forever to address concerns left for weeks on end, because there are unlimited spots available on ACR. However, if someone does this with a limited number of slots, it is not fair to the other editors waiting for an ACR for a nominator to take their time. Therefore, I also propose the following inactivity criteria, all three of which must be met for a review to be summarily archived:
 * There are outstanding unresolved comments.
 * The nominator has not edited the review page in 7 days.
 * Note this says nothing about addressing comments.
 * All slots for reviews are full

I think this inactivity rule resolves the issues and isn't gameable, when taking in combination with our long-standing rule that nominations with several opposes can be rejected right away. I think this overall solution (with grandfathering in existing nominations) is a good way to move forward; I don't claim that it's flawless or solves everything, but I think it's worth trying in order to get things moving at ACR again. For articles like Kansas Turnpike, I would even consider setting up a separate process that operates more like FAR, but we can discuss that later. --Rschen7754 10:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding reluctance to review: I can only speak for myself, but personally I usually don't review because I simply never have any reason to interact with ACR. I don't have anything in the short term to take to ACR (or FAC for that matter). I rarely even nominate GAs. My preferred work method is to take many articles to B rather than spending the same time to bring a few to GA/ACR/FAC. Since I don't really participate on that side of the process, I feel somewhat estranged from the FAC criteria. I can comment on grammar and spelling and style, but I am thoroughly unfamiliar with picky details like the MOS and similar policies that FAC likes, so whenever I offer a review it feels lacking because I'm missing something. My most recent reviwe was a 4th review solicited on my talk page, and I pretty much didn't review it so much as auto-support because I didn't really see anything wrong. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Scott, I thought you did a fine job reviewing I-80 when it was at ACR. Don't get yourself down that you're not a good reviewer.
 * Anyway, here the biggest issue I have with ACR: we want to have as many articles pass through it as quickly as possible. Those of us who bring articles to ACR have made clear their intentions (or at least to me they have) about what articles are in their personal queue.  So, when one article passes, the next is transcluded right away.  Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, but with our current pool of reviewers, it's asking a lot.  If every article is as long and as rough as Pennsylvania Turnpike (thankfully 95% of them are not), it burns us out as reviewers.  That's why you saw me making a couple image reviews; I simply didn't want to do a prose review.  It comes down to respecting our time when we're online.  Using myself as an example, between work and sleep, I have roughly a 6-hour window most days to live my life and contribute here.  And if we increase our throughput, that means reviewing articles every day.  I'd rather work with new editors or de-stub Missouri than review articles every day.
 * We don't have to go 100 mph. There is no deadline. –Fredddie™ 13:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you only have a limited amount of time to review, wouldn't it be better to focus it on the older nominations? --Rschen7754 19:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So are there any comments about the proposal itself? --Rschen7754 23:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the proposal as discussed so far, but I think there are two important elements it does not have:
 * An action plan for transitioning from the current system to the new system.
 * Incentives for users to review articles.
 * The first element should not be difficult. The second element will be. It is not necessary for the overall plan to go through, but I think we should try to come up with something to incentivize conducting reviews before we implement this proposal.
 * In the primary reasons rschen7754 gives above, the second reason states that "if there is a backlog, then the nominators waiting have motivation to review standing articles already." If so, it is a weak motivation because there is a carrot missing. Perhaps number of reviews conducted could be a factor in the queue. Suppose Editor A and Editor B both have articles at ACR, and the promotion of their articles is coming very soon. If Editor A has been reviewing more articles than Editor B, and there are articles from more than four editors in the queue, then Editor A's next article could get priority for placement in the top four compared to Editor B's next article.  V C  00:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple ideas:
 * Perhaps we can require people who put articles into the queue to review any open discussions.
 * Maybe look back at ACR reviewing history and compute weights for reviews. Say if Editors A, B, C, and D are reviewing Article X, Editor A's support might be worth 1.5 since (s)he thoroughly reviewed the last 10 ACRs.  Editors B and D intermittently review, so their supports are worth 1.  Editor C does drive-by reviews of every ACR and misses a lot of stuff, so their support would be worth 0.5.  I'm not sure how we would measure that, though.
 * The problem with both of these is that while they are both means to ends, they are not ends. –Fredddie™ 01:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with compulsory reviewing. Someone could write a good A-Class article but be a horrible reviewer. More to the point, I feel it could discourage nomination of articles for ACR. I don't nominate things for DYK anymore since the process became too overly elaborate for occasional users like myself to deal with, including a compulsory review to nominate. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't particularly like the idea of QPQ. As far as grandfathering in articles, right now we would need no special arrangements, except for allowing the two articles by Imzadi1979 to stand. Kansas Turnpike is in a separate category and shouldn't count towards the 4. I'm not particularly a fan of weights either because that's subjective. What about a leaderboard of reviewers? --Rschen7754 06:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just throwing ideas out there. QPQ wouldn't be so bad if it were willingly imposed, and it's clear not everyone here is willing.  I completely agree that DYK is a clusterfuck, and QPQ does not help it one bit.  But in that forum, there were users who abused the system and QPQ was imposed.  Here, there are definitely a few editors who are more prolific with their article writing and improvement.  I don't think, however, that it's close to the point of abusing the system. –Fredddie™ 01:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Restarting the ACR discussion
After some consultation with affected editors, I no longer think that the queueing solution is what is best for the project. I have a few other ideas, but I'm trying to get some input before I post them. --Rschen7754 10:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'd like to propose dropping the required level of support for promotion to 3 substantiative supports plus an image review. The image review can be done by one of the three reviewers. There's two reasons for this: 1) this is higher than some FACs and MilHist's ACR require, and 2) this faces the reality that we don't have enough reviewers to do 4 supports like we used to. The number 4 was chosen in 2008, when reviews were not as comprehensive and were easier to come by. I'd also suggest applying this to the current reviews in the system, though it's not entirely necessary. Thoughts? --Rschen7754 16:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of dropping to 3 supports and an image review. We do not have enough reviewers in order to do 4 supports anymore. In addition, it is helpful for the image review to be a factor in the ACR since it reduces the need for one should an article go to FAC.  Dough 48  72  23:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Deep down, I think this is really the best solution. I would, however, like to see some sort of mechanism for calling out bad reviews when we see them.  I know it's frustrating for me when I see another reviewer support after finding 10 nitpicky things and then the nominator argues their way out of actually fixing them because they're nitpicky. –Fredddie™ 00:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not crazy about dropping to three reviewers, but I do not have any compelling reason against it. I would prefer we try to incentivize editors conducting reviews. However, it seems like mine is a minority opinion. In addition to an image review, we should require a reference audit. If A-Class Review is concerned with preparing articles for the Featured Article process, we should identify the common tests applied there.  V C  00:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have thought about this for a while too. My only concern is about bogging down the process. I would suggest a lighter spotcheck for any article where a spotcheck would not be required at FAC (it seems that the delegates want one once a year). --Rschen7754 01:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So what do other people think about adding a spotcheck? --Rschen7754 08:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea to align ACR and FAC in this manner. –Fredddie™ 08:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful to have a reference spotcheck at ACR. This would make it easier at FAC if an article needs one there.  Dough 48  72  02:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Final question: do we want the +3, image review, and spotcheck to be retroactive? In other words, applying to the current ACRs? --Rschen7754 02:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this would help with the current backlog at ACR.  Dough 48  72  02:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% crazy about switching to +3/+IR, but WP:WIAACA only requires two supports in the non-ACR method to promote an article to A-Class. There is then precedent for using a lower threshold for promotion, since I also believe MILHIST only uses +3. That said, and knowing that any retroactive change would be to my benefit, I will support retroactively applying the change instead of grandfathering a requirement to use a higher promotion standard on the current nominations.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2013 goals
So... any suggestions? --Rschen7754 06:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think more editors than Concertmusic and myself should be correcting and modifying Georgia road transport articles. I have a crazy work schedule, so I can only do so much. By the way I am attempting to update and correct the List of numbered highways in Georgia (U.S. state) page. My attempt is currently on my sandbox. Please let me know what you guys think of it. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's twice as many editors as California has; we all have crazy schedules too, and can only do so much as well. I get that we want to improve Georgia road articles, but we can't shift all our manpower to Georgia while the other states fall apart. --Rschen7754 06:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I work 10pm-10am (2-5 days a week; some kind of rotating schedule they came up with). Now, I didn't mean that everyone would stop what they are doing and focus on Georgia. It would be nice to have other people helping out from time to time. Thanks in advance. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, but keep in mind that it's just me in CA now, Fredddie in Iowa, Imzadi in Michigan, Britinvasion in LA, VC in MD, Dough in PA, TCNJ7M in the Dakotas, Scott in OK, the New York editors, and a few people doing KMLs. And that's for a project supposed to be covering the entire country. We're a bit stretched thin, the most I've seen in a long time. We barely have enough people at ACR to review, which is eating a lot of time too. --Rschen7754 08:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know the project was so stretched thin. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Stub drive. --Rschen7754 07:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * KML drive of some sort. --Rschen7754 07:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How about a B-and-up drive? The stub drive was pretty good at getting articles improved from stub status. But a lot of them just ended up being pushed up only one class to Start. This drive would help motivate people to get the articles they worked on in 2011 the rest of the way up the hill. In keeping with the last stub drive's convention, how about a goal of increasing the total of FAs + As + GAs + Bs by 2013 from what it is on December 31? This would be a goal all states could contribute toward, whether they have 300 stubs or 0. It would be a great way to help us think about capitalizing on the resources offered for states which are not currently the major focus of an active editor (states like MO and KS, which have full map archives, just nobody to do the research). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For 2013, I would say we just keep pushing articles up in quality, whether it be stub to start, start to B, or getting more GAs and FAs. Since we lost a lot of stubs in 2011, we should give our attention to not only stubs but also start-class articles.  Dough 48  72  15:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is nothing concrete, but take a snapshot of the 100 or 500 most popular articles and try to improve them.  V C  20:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:USRD/PP exists for the snapshot. If you check the page history, you'll see that there are a few articles that consistently get more traffic than others.  I'm not sure if it goes back that far, but might be able to see the effect that being TFA, even being at FAC, has on an article. –Fredddie™ 22:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * From a new editor who really enjoys working on road articles, might I suggest a goal of training and recruitment? It sounds from the above like that is a bigger need than any production goal! Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this idea, but how do we reach out to new editors? –Fredddie™ 22:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One way of reaching out is to have a more welcoming project front page. We have kicked this idea around sporadically; how about we get serious about it by making it a goal?  V C  22:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We have an IRC channel at #wikipedia-en-roads, where interested users can discuss road-related issues with other editors. I, for one, think this was the key component in welcoming me to WP:USRD. Although, this shouldn't be the only way to welcome new users. I agree that a more welcoming project page is also needed. – TC N7  JM  23:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A "guide to writing road article's" with some basic sources listed would be good. I accidentally discovered a milepost by milepost guide to Indiana highways (It's a PDF and I downloaded it, but I forget the link now) and I am wondering if this type of source is widely available for other states?  Indiana is already pretty well done, although there are articles that can be improved.  A second goal along the same line as training and recruitment might be to find an individual that would be willing to act as "state coordinator" for each state.  Some of the smaller Eastern states could probably be grouped as a region, but once you get west of the Appalachians, all the states have enough roads to keep one guy more than busy. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we don't have editors for every state. What state are you interested in editing though? I'll see what we can do. --Rschen7754 05:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We also have the New User Orientation page, which gives new users the groundwork to get started in writing USRD articles. Basic resources that we are aware of are (or should be) contained on the state task force page for each state. But yeah, right now there are not enough editors in all states/regions to have a state/regional coordinator for everywhere. --  LJ  ↗  12:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to dropkick oppose any plan for another stub drive. I would really like to see that, as long as we commit to not making stubs, we have several states (KY, SC, NC, ME, etc) that still have routes without articles. Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 22:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I am a new editor to the project (but not to Wikipedia). I have some time but I'm not exactly sure what work is needed. Still trying to learn. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you interested in doing? --Rschen7754 23:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Cleanup and reoganization of various project pages, starting with the proposed main page revamp mentioned previously. If not a project goal, it should probably be worked on anyway... --  LJ  ↗  12:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Backlog reduction drive, i.e. clearing out some of our maintenance categories by adding needed maps, addressing articles needing attention, converting jct lists to templates, adding KML files, etc. This seems to be an area that is largely ignored. --  LJ  ↗  12:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * has a lot of backlog links in the right column. –Fredddie™ 15:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So if I'm hearing everybody right, our two biggest goals for 2013 should be:
 * Making the project pages more welcoming
 * Recruiting new editors in quiet states
 * Clarify where our backlogs are

Then once they're here, and get their feet wet, we urge them to:
 * De-stub and/or make improvements with a goal of B-Class (or above)
 * Backlog clearing

The first three are meta-goals to get us more help and where we need it. Obviously, the rest of us can do the bottom two :) –Fredddie™ 15:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the first three are not really actionable "goals" per se, since we can't really objectively say this time next year whether we achieved them or not (though we can discuss ways to make our project more oriented towards those aims). Also, there is not really a whole lot we can directly do to recruit—either someone is going to be interested in editing Missouri, or they're not; while we can make it easier for them to clear the hurdles to start contributing, we don't really have a whole lot we can do to make them interested in the subject if they're not already. Progress on a backlog clearing and a de-stub or B-and-up drive can be numerically measured, so we can easily see whether we are making progress towards those. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One the suggestions I would add if we could add Find reputable resources for all 50 states (or as much as we can). If we want to get new membership, I might suggest doing this, so we have sources to provide them. Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 23:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree about the first three goals not being actionable, but I understand the sentiment. After all, it is easier to point to X number of new Good Articles or Y percent improvement in wikiwork statistics than to point out infrastructure improvements or quantify how many new, productive editors the project has gained. I think goals 1 and 3 are definitely actionable, while goal 2 will take a little longer to crack. As with any set of infrastructure improvements, we can look to other projects that have done it and done it well.  V C  19:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How do we take action on Goal 1: Making the project pages more welcoming? We review our current project pages, identify what improvements need to be made, implement those improvements (they can be as minor as cosmetic and as major as an overhaul), evaluate the improvements, and continue to make improvements based on the evaluations.
 * How do we take action on Goal 3: Clarify where our backlogs are? This goes hand-in-hand with Goal 1. We need to first make new editors feel welcome, direct them to our areas of need, and give them the support and context they need to reduce the backlog.
 * How do we take action on Goal 2: Recruiting new editors in quiet states? This is a very hard one to crack. First, we need to have the infrastructure in place to support new editors properly, so we should try to meet goals 1 and 3 first; however, we need to accomplish goals 1 and 3 with goal 2 in mind, because the goals are somewhat interdependent. Once we meet goals 1 and 3, we consider how active we want to be in recruiting new editors. Are we looking for editors to work in a particular state or to do project-wide tasks like maps? If it is the former, we can look to the geography projects. For the latter, perhaps we look to the coordinates project or a similar project.
 * Perhaps "actionable" was a poor choice of words. "Quantifiable" is probably a better way of phrasing it. We can certainly take action towards these goals, but we can never really get to a point where we can say we either achieved or didn't achieve them. Also, to be honest, we've been trying to achieve most of these as a secondary objective for the past five years, but not really having all that much success. Because there is really no way to recruit someone to a WikiProject; they have to want to participate in Wikipedia in general and our project in particular, and the only say we have in that is to let them know we exist and to make participating appealing (by making project pages more welcoming). How will we know when project pages are "more welcoming to outsiders"? We're not exactly outsiders, so we'll never know that for sure! We can have renewed focus on these things, yes, but I think having something as a primary goal that really depends so much on external forces is really a bad idea.

 * Our primary goal for the project should be something metrics-based so that we can definitively say on June 30 "We are X% of the way towards the goal" and on December 31, 2013 "Yes, we accomplished our goal" or "No, we did not accomplish our goal". Otherwise it is sort of pointless to have as a goal. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Recruitment should be easily quantifiable. How many editors are you gaining?  If you want to use another, more meaningful metric, how much increase are we seeing on project article edits by project editors?  Doing things like article upgrades as a goal is admirable and doable, but it seems to me that a primary goal of any project has to be sustainability.  You can't have sustainability without a constant growth in membership, because face it, everyone will die someday. just sayin...Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not all that precise. At what point can we say that we have "gained" an editor? When they sign up on the membership list? Well, we have plenty of people that do that and then we never hear from them again. What if they are just doing minor typo fixing? What if they mostly focus on another project and occasionally add a sentence or two to a USRD article? This helps a little, of course, but what we really need is one dedicated editor with the drive to expand articles in each state. We need them to join in USRD discussions and network with us.

 * I am not advocating that we not recruit new members. A bigger USRD would benefit everyone and we definitely need to recruit people for the reasons both you and I have stated. I am pointing out that if we are going to say "OUR GOAL FOR 2013 IS: " we would be better served picking something that we can more easily determine whether we have achieved. I hate to trot out one of those tired management maxims that everyone hates hearing, but the SMART criteria are relevant here—our goal needs to be specific, measurable, and achievable. Setting a mushy goal to "recruit more members" isn't. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I am not really in agreement that growth is unmeasurable. Meaningful growth could be determined by using a metric like counting edits on project articles by project editors.  I agree that we don't at this time know what a control level would be, but that could be determined.  Perhaps creating a goal for established editors to mentor another editor this year and that as a continuing goal as so to achieve geometric growth rates in the future?  Perhaps shifting some focus from the production to the sustainability by using some of the efforts of established editors to work in conjunction with newer editors to create content rather than just doing it themselves?  This project does really good work, no one doubts that.  The concern I see is that most of the production comes from a group of editors numbering less than ten (probably smaller than that, but...).  What will happen to this project if some of those key editors are forced off Wikipedia by some RL event? Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How would we collect that metric? I am sure nobody wants to count it manually by contribution stalking people, but I am not aware of an existing tool to do that task. How would you determine whether someone is a "project editor" in the borderline cases? I am sure most of us would be willing to mentor new users, whether one-on-one or as a group (we always encourage new users to join IRC because we can help them in real time there). The underlying issue here, though, is that achieving this goal will depend on attracting and retaining people we don't yet know, and to a rather large degree, that will be out of our hands. So while it is definitely something we need to think about and encourage, setting it as a year-long primary goal is probably not the best idea. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Building off of what VC was saying before, how about no stubs or starts on WP:USRD/PP? –Fredddie™ 23:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Refocusing discussion
So... any more thoughts? --Rschen7754 public (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I say we stick with improving articles in class along with reducing the number of redlinks. A goal to reach a certain WikiWork may work.  Dough 48  72  21:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a quantifiable goal. Get the USRD relative WikiWork down to 4.400. With roughly 11,000 articles, we would need to improve by roughly 1600 classes to reach it. –Fredddie™ 01:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would set it a bit lower to 4.350, since 1600 classes could be 1600 stubs, and we did 2000 stubs in 2011. --Rschen7754 01:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be 2150 classes. I know we completed 2000 stubs with a few days to spare in 2011, but I think our lives are much busier now than they were then.  I'm not so sure we could duplicate that effort. Plus there was a LOT more low-hanging fruit, so to speak, than there was in 2011. –Fredddie™ 01:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, 4.4 sounds good after further discussion. I do think we need a project pages revamp still. --Rschen7754 01:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

In conjunction with that, another idea might be to have 25 states (i.e. half) destubbed by December 31, 2013. We currently have 11 (13 if you count DC and Guam), with a fair number of states within striking distance (there are two states with 1 stub, two with 2 stubs, and quite a few more with less than 10). Not terribly out of reach, and progress on this would be progress on the wikiwork. This would give people who like stub drives a thing to do, and people that don't like them could go do regular wikiwork stuff. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One goal helping another goal, plus it's doable. Good thinking. –Fredddie™ 03:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this, especially the multi-faceted aspect of the goal. It might help me get more of Nevada de-stubbed in my spare time. --  LJ  ↗  03:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Coordination
I'm start a page to help with coordination of the tasks that we need to keep the project running, as we continue to grow in infrastructure and editors. So far it's at User:Rschen7754/Coordination. I've added what I'm aware of, and this is basically the status quo, just written down. Feel free to add new tasks or add yourself to any tasks; I'm sure that stuff got missed. On the talk page we can post about wikibreaks or anything like that. Comments? Suggestions? --Rschen7754 06:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I-40 in Oklahoma JCT List screw-up
I suddenly discovered a big goof regarding the junction list for Interstate 40 in Oklahoma; All the I-40 Business Routes and Loops lead to redlinks to Michigan for whatever crazy reason. I thought this would be an easy problem to fix, but that turned out not to be true. What gives? -User:DanTD (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the problem changed the state in the template to Oklahoma from Michigan (Infobox road/OK/link BL template, not the Jct template). Detcin (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Portal
We need some suggestions for Selected Picture and Did you know? for Portal:U.S. Roads for next month.  Dough 48  72  01:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 USRD WikiCup
It's been a few years since we've attempted a WikiCup. I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to participate. I am willing to coordinate it, but I'd like some input on what you'd like to get out of it. Here are a few ideas that I have:

 * 1) The submissions page would be used again with diffs required
 * 2) Points would largely be based on the 2010 Cup (chart)
 * 3) Sample points breakdown
 * 4) *Points based on class improvements (stub to start=1 pt, stub to C=2 pts, etc.)
 * 5) *No points for states in the top ten
 * 6) *Half points for states above USRD Relative WW
 * 7) *Points squared for bottom five states (stub to start=1 pt, stub to C=4 pts, etc.)
 * 8) *Points for working on US 66 (would override no- and half-points multipliers)
 * 9) Points for fixing up USRD project pages
 * 10) Points for finding route logs in new states (yearly updates won't count)

If you have any ideas, please submit them below. –Fredddie™ 05:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to participate. As I've told Fredddie, I will be staying far away from coordinating it though. --Rschen7754 05:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would decline to participate if the proposed point structure is used. By all means, we should incentivize working on the lower-quality states, but allocating zero points at all for the top ten states is unduly harsh. There are many active editors that are likely to participate who primarily contribute to states both above and below the top ten threshhold, and this will greatly favor editors whose natural state of interest fall below the threshold while penalizing those above it. Additionally, the cup is usually when I like to take a break from article expansions to do a run of maps (and now KMLs)—Oklahoma, and many of the states above it, have yet to receive KML files, and a cup would be a great way to get people going on 100% completion of KMLs, but this gives the states with poor articles priority to get those poor articles KMLs before the quality articles have them. The bonus for bottom five states is far too high, as well—if one person gets Georgia an FA there would be no way for anyone else to win the cup. I propose establishing a baseline number of points, with a 2x multiplier for the states below USRD relative wikiwork and a 3x or 4x multiplier for the bottom five states. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't personally participated in any of these WikiCup-type contests before, and the proposed structure wouldn't change that. Given my past opinion, I don't really care if USRD holds one again, so long as it doesn't incentivize crappy editing (massive crappy article creation to get lots of DYKs, etc.)  Imzadi 1979  →   14:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So what would you change your mind? I'm not looking so much to win you over as I am looking for ideas. –Fredddie™ 02:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of the cup and I would be willing to participate; however, I agree with Scott that skewing all the points to the bottom states on the leaderboard would not be a good idea. There is still plenty of work needed to be done in the higher states, and some people are more comfortable working in certain states than others.  Dough 48  72  01:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the cup, and I'd like to participate. I also agree with the others that the point system needs some work. I'm just beating a dead horse, though, aren't I? – TC N7  JM  01:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I can definitely see the issues with the points; it should definitely favor the worse off states, but it's a little too skewed. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Have we ever had a FA during the past Cups? I...don't recall any. I admit that 10,000 points for a getting a FA in one of the bottom five states is a bit ridiculous, but it got your attention, didn't it? I do like Scott's points proposal, and I'll knock the top tier back to the top five and give half points instead of no points. Regarding DYK, would it be better to give points for 5x expansions only or give points for every DYK but scale them back? –Fredddie™ 02:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When will the WikiCup start? If I decide to participate, maybe it can be a fresh re-start to my editing. For one thing, I can get back to trying to de-stub and expand the Georgia state articles. Also, I can continue to hone my editing skills for the better. I was just curious. Could someone tell me what they thought of my expansion and de-stubbing of the Georgia articles the first time I worked on them? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot one of the most important questions: Will there be a sign-up page? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:USRDCUP –Fredddie™ 06:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am thinking it will start on February 1. I am working on getting all the pages ready. –Fredddie™ 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We may have never had an FA during the Cup before, but then again, we have never really had as much of a pro-FA environment as we do now. Some rules that need to be clarified—at what point level are full-USRD efforts tallied, the 1x level? (i.e. maps of the entire US, the USRD portal, etc.) Also, will the top 5/bottom 5 be "locked in", so to say, at the beginning of the contest, or will it be the top 5/bottom 5 states as of the time that points are awarded? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless someone makes a good case otherwise, I would say the 1x level. The top and bottom 5 would be locked in for the entire round.  I'm not completely done with all the pages yet. –Fredddie™ 06:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Welcome to the year 2013 on Wikipedia! This is just a reminder that our 2013 goals are now active, as listed on the project page.

As far as our 2012 goals: Congratulations to everyone on their hard work!
 * We lost 100 stubs last year, which fulfills our net loss goal.
 * We were unable to finish removing all the IH and USH stubs, but that will continue this year.
 * All FA/A/GAs are on the jctint templates, and we deployed the templates to at least two-thirds of our articles.

Many of us have been away over the holidays, but we hope to get a new newsletter out soon. As always, you can join us on the IRC channel; see WP:HWY/IRC for details. --Rschen7754 00:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Massachusetts is up for Featured Portal status
Hello all. The following is a neutrally worded courtesy message:

Portal:Massachusetts has been nominated for Featured Portal status. The nomination page is Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Massachusetts.

As a WikiProject with a related sphere of interest, you are being notified of the proceedings, and invited to participate in them.

Yours,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons and Wikidata projects
Our presence on Commons is at commons:COM:USRD, and on Wikidata at d:WD:USRD. --Rschen7754 05:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Category scope
Since it needs to be discussed, and probably should be added to WP:USRD/STDS—what exactly should be in each highway category, e.g. Category:U.S. Route 60? I think everyone can agree that the main US-60 article should be present, and all of the US-60 in X state-detail articles. Historically, I believe child route articles, such as US-160 are included as well. Do we want to continue this or move all child routes to their own category (possibly a subcat of the parent route's category)? Should routes that overlap with the focus route be included in the category? What about designations for former alignments of the focus routes, or routes that were subsumed by the focus route? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for suggesting this -- as I guess I should have before I started adding categories "willy-nilly".
 * I think that the categories should have all of the above, except for the concurrent routes. That was what I was attempting to accomplish myself. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the former alignments or routes subsumed are really pertinent enough to be included in the categories. On the topic of child routes, can't they be in the parent route's category and have their own (dependent on how many pages would be included in the category)? – TC N7  JM  13:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They could, but if they were a subcategory of the parent route, then you would see it listed alongside the other categories. The US-60 category would contain a subcategory for US-160, and you would see that subcategory from the US-60 category page, so there would be no reason to list US-160 pages directly in the US-60 category. [Edited to add—I think I may have misunderstood you here, but still ended up agreeing with your point in the next paragraph and the next bit down where I reset the indention.]

 * As for my own opinion, I think the categories should be strictly limited to pages directly dealing with the route (i.e. not routes related only by history, just the main article, state detail articles, and bannered route articles), with child routes given their own subcategories in cases where they have multiple pages. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Another thing we should probably be writing down while we're doing this—what should have categories for individual highways? Just U.S. and Interstate routes, and not state routes? If we decide to move the child route pages to new categories, perhaps we should suggest only doing so if there are multiple pages besides the main article (i.e. at least one S/D article or bannered route page has to exist). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If only one S/D article or bannered route article exists, then that would only be two pages total in the category. That isn't enough to keep it going, and it would either be deleted or merged back to the parent category. I agree with your statement that state routes shouldn't have their own categories. – TC N7  JM  14:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The only state trunkline in Michigan (using that term not to include Interstates and US Highways for a moment) that has its own category is M-28, but M-28 has articles for one current, and two former, business loops. (M-28 also has its own featured topic, and one of the criteria of a FT is "All articles or lists in the topic are linked together, preferably using a template, and share a common category or super-category." [emphasis mine] ) In general though, I would only support categories for other individual state highways in similar cases: related "child routes" with a definite connection and to help support a GT/FT situation.
 * When it comes to Interstates and US Highways, the parent–child situation is more clear-cut. In some cases, the category membership might be small, but if WP:SMALLCAT's exception for items as part of an accepted subdivision scheme applies, we're ok.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that the only highways that should have categories are the ones notable enough to support a tree of articles. That would be limited to the transcontinental (or nearly transcontinental) highways (be them US or interstate) and and a handful of other highways (be them US or state routes) where they the multi-article notability comes from other factors aside from length. I can think of several US and interstate highways that only have a single article and would not need categories.Dave (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I take the opposite view, let's take U.S. Route 66. I have no doubt that category needs some pruning (as does everything associated with that article) but the former route IS what gives that route notability. If the category were limited to only active routes and sub-articles, the category would be, well, empty. I would also argue that at least for the former transcontinental arteries that have been decommissioned in the western states thanks to the interstate highway system, (read most of the US highways that have a 0 as the final digit) former alignments ARE notable enough to merit being included in the category. I would also argue that significant stretches of former auto trails merit a category mention too. I'll grant you that some county route that used to be part of US 40 before a new alignment was built 1/2 mile to the north, yeah that's iffy. Dave (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Yes Imzadi I know I owe you an article review. I'm working on it, I promise.
 * Personally, I think categories for Interstates and U.S. Routes should include the main route, any state-detail pages of the main route, any child routes, any bannered/business routes of the main route, and any bridges/tunnels/other structures related to the main route. I do not think the category should include anything related to the child routes and not the main route at all. As for former alignments, I'm on the fence on including them for the main route but am definitely against including former alignments of child routes in the category.  Dough 48  72  18:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 66 isn't the greatest example, since there's an entire task force on it... --Rschen7754 20:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am glad you brought this up Scott, because it is something that seems inconsistent in the project. I believe for the US routes that we should make each route its own category, with child routes having separate categories for their own state detail and related articles--this is the scheme used for category:U.S. Route 95 and category:U.S. Route 395, with the latter being a category within the former. I don't think we should include overlapping routes, and perhaps all the former alignments would not be needed (but a major supplanted alignment possibly, i.e. including I-80 in NV as part of the US 40 category tree) However, notable bridges, tunnels, etc. as well as bannered routes should be included in the appropriate route category (perhaps state-detail level categories, if there are many).
 * We might also have to examine what kind of category structure would work well for the interstate highways, since that numbering scheme is different. Would it be necessary, for example, to have state-detail categories to cover the 3DIs and business routes in each state? Also state routes--I agree with Imzadi that we probably shouldn't have categories for every state highway, but exceptions can be made for notable schemes and cases. --  LJ  ↗  23:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Meta
We now also have a page on Meta: USRD. This is more for outreach efforts and interwiki discussion rather than anything else, like most of the other pages on Meta. --Rschen7754 07:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We also have wikisource:WS:USRD now as well. This would coordinate inclusion of the full texts of the various statutes and court cases that impact highways in the US.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

County routes in Georgia (U.S. state)
As I have driven through parts of Georgia, I have noticed signs for upcoming intersections. These are the kind with the name of the upcoming road listed underneath. Some of them say "CR&XXX". Now, does Georgia actually have county routes? If so, can they be added to Wikipedia at all? I haven't done any search on Google -- or elsewhere -- for them. I just wondered if any of you had any information on them. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:USRD/NT. --Rschen7754 00:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I kind of thought that you guys would say they aren't notable enough to add, but I thought that I'd ask.
 * Anyway, where can I go to find any information on those routes? Since -- for the most part -- the GDOT website sucks, I'm not sure where to go to find correct, reliable sources for any Interstate, U.S., or state routes in the state, let alone the county routes. I truly want to get closer to the level of editing of Imzadi1979, Rschen7754, and the rest of the USRD folks, but I keep running into brick walls. Since I plan to continue expanding and de-stubbing Georgia articles for the WikiCup, I need good sources. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With Georgia, I would just look at Google Maps and just start writing. –Fredddie™ 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, just write. That's how I got to where I am. I wrote articles, improved the writing in articles, and kept researching articles. Over time I nominated articles through the various review and assessment processes, learning from the critiques along the way.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Go to the bookstore and buy a DeLorme atlas for Georgia (about $20). If you can't find one there, order it online. This will give you the names of local roads and minor geographical features, for use in the route description of shorter articles. For longer articles, the state-level GDOT map or Google Maps will suffice. Read some Michigan articles, and some FAs from other states, and follow the practices they do. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just curious about the county routes in Georgia, but you guys turned it around on me.
 * I have the 2013 Large Scale Rand McNally Road Atlas, the 2011-2012 GDOT road map, and an Augusta, Georgia, and Columbia County road map. I also use Google Maps and Rand McNally's online mapping (randmcnally.com).
 * I do plan to expand more Georgia state route articles, but I want to wait until the WikiCup. Do you have any more updated information on it?
 * I do thank you for helping me become a better road article editor. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're waiting for the cup, the least you can do is sign up. –Fredddie™ 02:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Florida CR infobox shields
I am making a change to that will likely break a few instances of county road shields in Florida. Right now it's a mishmash of code caused by the new naming scheme we rolled out in the last year and this will vastly simplify things. Anyone with the filemover right on Commons is encouraged to help out. Shields will need to be at " County .svg". –Fredddie™ 06:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Turned out to be all for naught. Only 20 or so instances popped into the category where I was expecting nearly all of them. –Fredddie™ 17:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Questionable page moves
Am I the only one who finds these three page moves to be a bit bizarre? The purpose of the pages was clear before the rename; now, the title could easily lead people to think that it's cruft. –  T M F  (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I like "X (disambiguation)" better than "List of roads named X" as the former clearly illustrates the use as a disambiguation page.  Dough 48  72  15:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See previous discussions at Template talk:Roadindex, Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 28, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways)/Archive 1, Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 15, and likely many other discussions as well. This is squarely in the opaquely gray no-man's land between deeply entrenched opinions regarding disambiguation and set index pages. In the particular case of these three pages, these look to be more like disambiguation pages than set index lists. The issue may be that Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title was moved to that name to address pages like List of highways numbered 2 -- where some, but not all of the entries might be ambiguous with "Route 2", and some but not all of the entries might be ambiguous with "Highway 2", etc. Thus the list is heterogeneous with regards to disambiguation, but they all share the common property of having "2" as an identifying number. Thus that sort of page is clearly a set index rather than a disambiguation page. However, where a road name is ambiguous, it seems that could be a disambiguation page. However, by analogy with set index usage for ships and mountains shipindex and mountain index, the set index classification is also used for pages that address ambiguous uses. So it is a mixed bag and previously the subject of extensive discussion. older ≠ wiser 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand all of that, and I get why the moves were made after reading up on the thin line between dabs and SIAs. (It's still not something I agree with, but I have better things to do with my time than tilt at windmills over this.) However, I'm still genuinely concerned that some drive-by editor is going to see "List of roads named New York State Route #" and instantly think "Why do we have this cruft?" Maybe it's just because I've been around long enough to remember the days when state route AFDs weren't unheard of, but I can see how a page named "List of roads named New York State Route #" would draw much more ire than, say, "List of peaks named Signal Mountain" or "New York State Route # (dab)". –  T M F  (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If they are to be dabs, they should be tagged (and formatted) as dabs instead of with "road index". The cruftiness of the content as a set index/list article is not affected by moving them the the correct title. I'll be happy to move them back and reformat them as dabs if they aren't supposed to be set indexes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They're clearly supposed to be disambiguation pages. Not sure what formatting has to do with this other than the tag at the bottom of the page; they were already compliant with MOS:DAB. –  T M F  (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed the tag at the bottom of each page and undid my moves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Migrating STF and MTF to Commons
Now that we have a USRD at Commons, do you think it would be a good idea to migrate our shields and maps task forces to Commons? –Fredddie™ 03:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we can keep task force pages there, but we should also keep them here still (specifically the requests pages) so they are more accessible to users.  Dough 48  72  04:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that overall this is the best move for the project in the long term as we branch out to other WMF wikis, and also to protect our own interests over at Commons. --Rschen7754 04:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure this is a good idea. Is there a precedent for this sort of thing on Commons? If not, I'm afraid we may encounter pushback from the locals over there. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Another thought—this would make it more difficult for us to keep track of everything going on; I personally don't check my Commons watchlist, and I doubt I'm the only one who would have to get in the habit of doing so. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stalk-bot *cough cough* There's an Aviation WikiProject over there and it seems to be doing well. --Rschen7754 05:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My thought behind this is that we could possibly attract people there who don't give a hoot about editing here. Or people who don't speak English, but would like to help out in their own way.  Also, KML seems like a perfect candidate for WikiData, but I don't think there is any framework for thinking about beginning discussions over there.  All in all, I don't see this being a Bad Thing®. –Fredddie™ 23:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this would be a good idea to pursue. I really like Fredddie's division of labor reasoning.  V C  02:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly; a lot of people I've talked to from other wikis are turned off to the thought of participating on the English Wikipedia because of the current editing environment. --Rschen7754 09:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Routes don't exist within National Parks?
There's a claim made at U.S. Route 20 that U.S. Routes don't exist within national parks, and thus any such route that crosses such a park is considered to be disjointed. Does anyone have any reliable sources which state this to be true? I've driven any number of U.S. Routes through any number of national parks, and never noticed that the Route stopped existing, nor have I ever heard this as a policy. For example, U.S. Route 441 is the main north-south route through the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and as far as I can remember, there's no indication it stops at the park boundaries. Likewise, U.S. Route 89 crosses several national parks. Can someone verify whether or not the claim in the U.S. 20 article is valid? -- Jayron  32  21:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true of some but not all national parks. Yellowstone's notorious for stopping virtually all U.S. Routes. --Rschen7754 21:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The roadway inside National Park Boundaries would be maintained by the NPS, while outside park boundaries it would be maintained by a state agency. NPS isn't consistent, usually they continue to sign highways by number inside park boundaries. Yellowstone is an exception where no highways are signed by number inside park boundaries. As such all the highways that touch Yellowstone park boundaries have a gap in signage. Even then it's debatable weather (for example) US 20 is a discontinuous route, or is continuous with a sizable unsigned portion. Sadly, many roadgeek sites are wrong or exaggerated in how such highways are handled, and this has carried over into wikipedia. An example where Wikipedia is inconsistent within the same article is US-191. It has a section in Wyoming that is mantained by NPS and a section in Arizona that is mantained by the Navajo Nation. Neither section is signed with the US-191 designation (the Navajo Nation portion is signed with its Navajo numerical designation and even signed in kilometers, not miles, as are all other Navajo Nation highways). However, the article for US-191, with great fanfare, pronounces the route discontinuous through Yellowstone, but continuous within the Navajo Nation. How to fix it? IDK. Dave (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My experience in Yellowstone is not a reliable source, but I can verify that US Highways are not signed within the park. –Fredddie™ 23:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The best way to answer this question or come to a satisfactory interpretation is to look at reliable sources from state or federal transportation agencies. Using signage status based on anecdotes would be challenged as original research. Using state highway log books or even GIS that indicates a particular segment is part of a U.S. Highway or even is signed should be sufficient. For instance, the Arizona log includes all of US 191, including the part within the Navajo reservation. The Montana route log shows US 191 (inventoried as N-11) beginning at the Yellowstone park boundary. Wyoming has a route log as well and the U.S. Highways appear to end or begin at the Yellowstone boundary.  V C  02:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Curiously, there is a segment of US 191 north of West Yellowstone, Montana, that not only enters the park boundary, but also Wyoming. The part in Wyoming is not inventoried by Montana, but the mileposts end and begin again as if it were. –Fredddie™ 05:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I like VC's approach, but there is still the potential for argument even using official sources. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the AASHTO logs list the Yellowstone highways as continuous. Dave (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata
As you may know, Wikidata today launched phase 1 (the interwiki links) on the Hebrew and Italian Wikipedias: http://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/01/30/wikidata-coming-to-the-next-two-wikipedias/. The important news is that it will be launching on the English Wikipedia on February 11th. That is also the same day that Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada–Wendover, Utah) will be TFA, by the way. Before then we ideally want to finish up phase 1 (descriptions, finishing any missing items, etc.) On that day, hopefully enwp won't spiral out of control with people removing interwiki links before they're input into Wikidata; we should be good to go however since over 90% of our items are created and set up already. I'm not sure if we should be removing interwikis from our articles en masse after February 11th yet.

Ideally, we want to finish phase 1 because the first parts of phase 2 will be deploying on February 4th. This is where Wikidata really begins for us. On that day, two types of fields will be added to items: links to media on Commons, and links to other items. This will allow us to have a link to a highway's map and shield on Commons, as well as form hierarchical relationships (say, auxiliary routes). I'm hoping to start a discussion to get this all figured out on Wikidata sometime soon, before the chaos erupts February 4th. These fields will not be deployed onto Wikipedia for a few weeks, so we'll have a bit of time to figure it all out. --Rschen7754 20:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Highway 2 Bridge for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Highway 2 Bridge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Highway 2 Bridge until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
 * Is that nomination complete? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata phase 2 live!
is an example item with three statements. I would suggest holding off on adding these to articles en masse for a few days, since you risk having to redo them should something change. Besides, we still have Phase 1 to finish :) I'll be proposing a few more statements as well over the next few days. --Rschen7754 20:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be possible to add KML data as one of these "statements" at some point, or will we need something more suited to the task? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It remains to be seen - so much of the site is in flux right now. --Rschen7754 02:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A favor from you?
Hi...I am an inactive member here, hoping to change that but never seeming to find the time. I do a lot with the Editor Retention Project, and we have started an editor recognition program. I am just gonna post the ad, and you all can do what you would like with it. Hope some of you would contribute a nomination or two! Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I-96 ACR
Hi! Would someone mind giving I-96 a review at ACR? It's been sitting for months with no activity. Remember it's also worth 15 points at the USRD Cup! --Rschen7754 08:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Categorization
I would like to put out there I am in the process of adding the category Roads designated in XXXX (year) on several highway pages, to populate the categories. If anyone is willing to help, that would be great. Tinton5 (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't; this is a very controversial categorization. --Rschen7754 01:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How so? Tinton5 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, take California State Route 67. When was it designated? There is no clear-cut answer here. There have also been concerns that this is overcategorization, and rightly so; we don't need to categorize based off every single way possible. --Rschen7754 02:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So, should all of these categories be removed from the pages they are on? If so, I could help out with that. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My preference would be we just limit categories to "Transport in X County, Y state", "State highways in X", "Byways, freeways in X, NHS X, projects by ______ (like Robert Moses) and nothing else. The vagueness of the categories doesn't help the cause and besides, we already have with the first group can manage 10-15 categories. Mitch 32 (The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 03:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that we do not need these by-year categories as they are more trouble than they are worth.  Dough 48  72  03:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of not further populating categories of roads based on years. This we can implement immediately, by stopping any efforts to populate the categories. I am also in favor of removing articles from those categories and deleting the categories. For this, we should probably find out what the consensus is for taking action. I seem to remember a previous discussion about this. Did we come to a conclusion in that discussion?  V C  05:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The original discussion was held about six months ago. It seems that the conclusion was that the "Roads opened in Foo" categories are unquestionably problematic and should be deleted, and the "Roads designated in Foo" categories, while somewhat less problematic, are still crufty and shouldn't be used. I guess both categories are attempts to give roads an entry in Category:Transport infrastructure by year of completion, but I'm not convinced that roads need an entry there. All but one of the other topics there (excluding rail lines, which would have the same problems as roads) are structures at a single location, which makes the year to use for them much less controversial. –  T M F  (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been removing the articles in the categories. I think that all of the categories are empty now. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Should we CfD the categories? – TC N7  JM  18:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea.  Dough 48  72  20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I started to CfD them, and then an admin just told me to CSD them, so that's what I'm doing now. – TC N7  JM  20:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And now I'm CfD-ing them again...discussion can be found here. Feel free to leave comments! – TC N7  JM  21:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

m:Grants:IEG/GIS and Cartography in Wikimedia
Not sure if this is interesting, but here's a link... --Rschen7754 22:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Along those same lines, I mentioned in IRC the other night about an idea to speed up the backlog at MTF/R. Basically, it would apply the MTF style to OpenStreetMap so we could simply export maps for our use. I have no idea how to go forward from this, but maybe by putting it in writing something will come of it. –Fredddie™ 23:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, what would speed things up would be a tool that would show us a list of articles with KMLs but not maps (this is a simple proposition of category intersection and probably already exists). With a KML already made, making a map is trivial. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This can be done with AWB and set intersection. --Rschen7754 03:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Bold abbreviations?
I don't know if it matters much, but is there a styling guide to whether the abbreviated road name should be bolded? (Interstate 68 is not, but Interstate 355) is...) It seems to be that the majority are bold, but there are many, including a number of the interstate articles, which do not bold the "I-.." Thanks.  " Pepper "  @ 21:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally, the abbreviation is bolded at the first mention in the lead (not including the parentheses). Some articles still need to be updated.  Dough 48  72  22:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks.  " Pepper "  @ 22:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata update
Well, a week's gone by since the enwp launch and things are off to a good start. We're working to finish up Phase 1 on 14 more states, plus USH. Phase 2 has begun in earnest. So far we have 5 properties, and there is a massive bot run to add three of them (highway system, maintained by, owner) to all IH, USH, and state highway items. Alabama through Maine are going to run tonight, and the rest will run at some other date within the next week. I have a few more ideas for items that can be done with the limited data types that we have, but that will come at some point once we're caught up. --Rschen7754 10:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Maryland will run within the hour, and Ohio has already been run. We have 12 more states left plus USH. So we're slowly getting caught up... --Rschen7754 21:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious photo
File:SawgrassExpressway-MainSign-July1992.jpg, which is claimed to be taken in 1992 by, looks like a duplicate of this photo taken by Michael Summa in 1986.  Dough 48  72  20:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They sure look to be the same photo, with the picture on aaroads only being zoomed in (maybe cut off) and commons not. The cars in the background all look to be the same, minus the van that is partly cut off on the aaroads photo (because of the zoom), that van has something out the windows in both photos also. If they are not the same that is sure odd that both photos have the same cars and the van has something out the window in both photos. Detcin (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They are both clearly scans of the same photo. By appearances the one on commons is probably the one with the more accurate description. What I would say is, although I'm a big fan of AARoads and Michael Summa for their historical road pics, they are not immune from sloppy and/or mistaken notes. Case in point  that is in no way Green River, Utah as claimed in the photo. If I had to guess that is Grand Junction, Colorado. This is similar to this photo, which was at one time claimed to be in Green River, but I pointed out to AAROADS is obviously Grand Junction, Colorado. They promptly corrected the obvious one, but I suspect both of these pics were taken at the same place and time. My point is not to bash, we all make mistakes, only to point out I wouldn't assume one is right and the other is wrong, just because one has been around longer or claimed to be older. Dave (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If it would help at all, I can contact the administrator of the AARoads Shield Gallery to confirm that the photo is, in fact, from Summa. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the two photos, and they are the same. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Scott, please do so. I also notified the user who uploaded the photo.  Dough 48  72  14:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The plot thickens: Jake from the AARoads Shield Gallery says the description there is in error; it is not the work of Michael Summa! He says he is not sure who the actual photographer is, and may well be Formulanone. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Boilerplate prose copied from another article
Copied from Help desk:

I'm looking for the specific policy or guideline about making boilerplate copies of prose from one article which repeat fundamental points about that article into tangentially-related articles (not daughter pages where a summary might be appropriate). This seems very simple, but I can't find a good reference. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Does WP:COPYWITHIN help?--ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

 * WP:COPYPASTE looks like it applies. See the bottom section -- it covers copying from one Wikipedia article to another.  You must preserve attribution.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Of course another consideration, aside from the above, is whether the copied text is being used in an unacceptable WP:FORK.--ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

 * WP:COPYWITHIN seems to talk about attribution, WP:COPYPASTE says that you can/may copy from another article, but not whether that is advisable. It's sort of a WP:FORK, but it only duplicates a piece of the article, not full duplication. I'm concerned about unnecessarily creating Sync problems and the plain fact that details about a tangential topic don't belong in articles linking to that topic.

 * Here's an example: The last paragraph in Ohio State Route 444 talks about the defining characteristics of the National Highway System (United States), the overall maintenance responsibilities of the Ohio Department of Transportation and the definition of average annual daily traffic. These facts, IMO, should be left to those articles; a reader wishing to learn more could easily navigate to those articles.

 * The editor in question has changed several articles in this manner. I could address with him/her individually, but I wanted to find specific guidelines first. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree with your position. One approach would be to use Main or See also templates to link back to the more general stuff making navigation easier and getting rid of unnecessary bloat.--ukexpat (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, but it's not even a summary-type article, so Main wouldn't really apply; there is appropriate content, just too much that's tangential, so See Also probably also wouldn't apply. When I searched though the Help pages, I was rather astonished this topic wasn't clearly addressed. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not boilerplate prose copied from another article, per se. It's a half-sentencen or single sentence explanation/definition in the form of a paraphrased quotation offered inline and quoted to its original source. In the case of the NHS definition, standard practice is to quote the Federal Highway Administration's page that explains the NHS, so we are not truly copying text from one article to another. Rather we are repeating a standard quotation and citation across multiple articles. If the reader wants more detail about the background, legal foundation and detailed designation of the subsystems of the NHS involved, the link is provided.
 * As for ODOT's maintenance responsibility, that must be mentioned, and not implied, in the text of the article. The infobox at the top right corner of the should already be mentioning the maintaining agency for a roadway, and all information in the infobox, like the rest of the lead, should be repeated elsewhere in the body of the article. The infobox would not serve as a good summary of an article if it mentioned unique details not supplied in the prose someplace.
 * As for the short definition of AADT, good writing says that we can offer a short explanation inline to avoid sending a reader to another article. This practice was upheld in several articles I took to FAC, including U.S. Route 2 in Michigan. I agree that if we delved into more technical explanations of the AADT concept that it would be tangential, but the summation and explanation of the concept offered in the articles in question is fine.
 * In short, I disagree with the notion that there is a problem, and I would submit that if these articles are taken higher up the assessment scale, these shorts of details being removed by Chaswmsday would need to be reinserted to satisfy expectations of good writing.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

End copy --Chaswmsday (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Chaswmsday:

Please don't remove the NHS and AADT info, most every other road article that is at ~B or above has this info. So why would these not have this info.Detcin (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I believe the prose specifically about NHS and AADT should be removed from the route articles (references to them are great), per the edit summary comments I made when removing. Please see comments made at Help desk. --Chaswmsday (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2013

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 19