This is an archive of past discussions with User:TwinsMetsFan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I regret that I have been so busy lately that I just logged on recently for the first time in many weeks. That is why I did not see your suggestions until now.
I promise you I will get to make the corrections you suggest as soon as I have some free time, but it has been very busy lately.
I think the bottom line of your suggestions is that wikipedia is simply not made for the person like me: a once in a while contributor when time allows. Wikipedia should be left to "wikipros" like you. Nghtownclerk (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)nghtownclerkNghtownclerk (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
US 971B
Thanks for your clarification of the description of my photograph, I thought that this was in fact the terminus of US 9. You wouldn't believe the trouble I almost had for taking this picture... Cplbeaudoin (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. The actual north end of US 9 is about 0.2 miles behind that viewpoint at the on-ramp to I-87. However, it's still a good pic in this respect: as I noted in the caption, NY 971B was US 9 prior to the construction of the Northway, which cut off US 9 from the Canadian border. So, the point shown in the background of the photo is the north end of what's left of the original (at least post-1940s) routing of US 9. I think it's definitely worth including in the U.S. Route 9 in New York article, where NY 971B and the truncation of US 9 are both mentioned in detail. – TMF00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It is when it's plagiarized. Having the same info is one thing, having it verbatim is another. – TMF00:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Except that it isn't. I didn't see anything in the NYCRoads article about the dairy farm, or that many of the potential interchanges. ----DanTD (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, those may have been original items, but at least half of the article wasn't. And when there's that much plagiarized material in that many revisions, it's much easier to start from scratch than it is to sort out what was ripped from a website and what wasn't. You're more than welcome to request a deletion review if you believe the deletion was unjustified. – TMF02:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Florida State Road 804
On the Florida State Road 804 you wrote "Article describes the route in an east-to-west progression. It should be west-to-east. – TMF 06:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)", I have switched it around now. Will you give it another look.
Thanks68.106.193.194 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I see you've been working quite a lot on this template recently. Just wondered if you had any more thoughts about converting it to use {{WPBannerMeta}}? It would be a bit of work, though certainly possible, and may save you time in the long run. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't speak for the rest of the project, but if it could be converted to WPBM without losing its current functionality and method of operation, then I'd be OK with it. In the meantime, while the code for the USRD banner is a bit funky and long-winded in parts, I feel it's something that's manageable. If I saw a decent mockup of a WPBM implementation of the USRD banner, I could be swayed in favor of it. The project as a whole though...that remains to be seen. – TMF03:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Greetings again. Just to say that I've made a start on this task. You can see my initial efforts at Template:U.S. Roads WikiProject/testcases. I've still the state "topics" to code, and on this subject there seem to be some issues with the icons. I have compiled a list of the ones that seem to be supported and I would be grateful if you could take a look at User:MSGJ/Sandbox/1 and let me have your thoughts. You'll notice that some of the necessary subtemplates of Template:Infobox road do not exist and there are quite a few of the images which don't exist. Hopefully we can get this template cleaned up properly! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the types on that page are invalid or no longer used. Everything from "AB" down are Canadian provinces and are thus irrelevant to this template. The three types "missing" infobox road templates have either been replaced (MICH is now MI-CHTF) or aren't used at all anymore (the projects called by "CA county" and "Harrisburg" have been eliminated). That list is also missing a couple of task forces and calling many incorrect shields. – TMF22:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay I've updated my sandbox. MI-CHTF doesn't seem to exist either? So we seem to missing icons for DE, KY, MD, MI, NE, PA, SD, WA and PR. You say that some of them are wrong, but I think these are precisely the ones that Template:U.S. Roads WikiProject/subtopic currently uses. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah okay, I'll take a closer look tomorrow. Perhaps it would be simpler to keep a standalone list of the shields in this template and not rely on the infobox template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand that's more of a proof-of-concept than anything else, but there's a lot of excessive code there. For example, FL-CRTF and NY-CRTF could use the same switch line, the <state>-blank.svgs could use the same switch line with {{{state}}} replacing the individual abbreviations, and so on. – TMF17:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
As a someone that follows his talk page, I can answer for him. WP:USRD standards say that to be C-Class, a highway article needs a "Route description"", a "History" and a junction list section that complies with MOS:RJL. The section names can vary slightly, but the first two of those Big Three should be what's in quotes. The junction list should be summarized into the infobox as well, but the full list should be a separate section in the article. Imzadi1979→03:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
On my most recent attempt to source some info on New York State Route 112 you claimed that the road's origins as the Patchogue State Road are "not in reference given - all that site has are a couple of blog posts and log in links." I don't see any blog posts there. This was actually from publications by the Patchogue Medford Library itself. The third reference is that of a map from 1850. If necessary, I'll scan a copy of this map and e-mail it to you, or post the file of this map onto Image Shack and send you the link so you can examine it yourself. ----DanTD (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why generic links to the library's site are being added then. Linking to the site implies that the information being sourced is found on that specific site or a subpage of that site, especially in the way the citation is formatted right now. {{cite book}} or something similar should be used for the publications themselves, and I would drop the links since they're not really useful. – TMF03:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I did drop the direct PML link on one of them, and replaced it with a pdf copy of one of the publications which mentions NY 112 as "Stage Road." I'll ditch the other link, but I expected those links to have the information itself. I'd still like to use the map I mentioned. ----DanTD (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's the map of NY 112 from 1850(Yes, I know it was before the automobile, let alone NYSDOT's practice of adding route numbers to streets, but it's still the same road). Swipe it, scan it, and enlarge it for yourself, and you'll see the old name. ----DanTD (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Stubs / FM 2493
Hi TMF, thanx for the info about the Campaign, didn't know about that. The short stubby-ness (if there is such a word :) ) wasn't originally my doing. I was actually trying to clean up a wrong-way problem and add the intersection list, and meant to expand the main section, but my schedule is a bit different (I work nights) and was kinda tired by the time I'd fixed the wrong-way part and added the intersection list. I actually left my computer on the 2493 page so it will be ready for me in the morning after work. Thanx again Awtribute (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Blank highway shields
Hello, I noticed some of the blank highway templates disappearing from road lists such as this from this page and I wanted to discuss the rationale before deciding about putting some of them back. Aside from being a placeholder to allow the text to line up more aesthetically, it also makes it easier to find the appropriate base graphic to use as a template by any future editor (like a graphical red link). Does that make sense to you? KimChee (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Not really. There was a large discussion a while back on whether those lists should have any shields at all, and I believe having blanks is pushing the limits a bit too far. You're more than welcome to bring it to another venue, such as WT:USRD or WT:HWY, if you disagree. As for me, unless the project decides otherwise, I'm going to remove any blanks if I see them. – TMF07:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Please don't delete an entire paragraph without giving a legitimate reason, putting Uh huh as your reason is not sufficent enough. Thank you for your cooperation. Blu-Gruff (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
First off. This is Oneida County Route 48A not New York State Route 48A. There has never been a State Route 43A and its basic non-road person confusion of levels of highways. Nothing here to see folks.Mitch32(TransportationHistorian)23:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hudson County Routes
Some time ago you did extensive work on converting road boxes for many roads on the List of county routes in Hudson County, New Jersey. Unfortuately the new infobox mistakenly states that they are maintained by NJDOT, which they are not, but rather by the Hudson County Dept of Public Works. Is there a way for this is be fixed by changing the info box? If so could you do this? If if has to be done manually, what actually has to be done? Would be happy to do so as I come cross the articles. Djflem (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I revamped MI's lists. List of special routes in Michigan is going away, and the I/US/M lists inherited the bannered routes. In doing so, there are now M-old-Alt, -Byp and -Truck in the list. I have the links done, but the types need to be passed into the banner plate templates. MI's plate subtemplate is set to call the right plates. Can you swing those three types into jct for me? Imzadi1979→09:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks as though all the changes you did for the I routes were fine and so were the US changes. It's just the US-Alt, US-Bus, US-Spur, US-Byp, US-Truck & US-Scenic that needed more work.
Another option could be to just make the changes for the I & US routes and not do the other US-type route at the moment. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
From what I could tell, nothing related to the US Routes worked perfectly - whenever a US route or a US special route was in the fourth slot, the link would always break because somewhere along the line in Jct, whitespace was added to the parameter. My guess is that it broke because the number is passed into the jct/link and jct/shield templates as an unnamed parameter (which doesn't strip whitespace according to Help:Template) instead of as a named parameter (which does). So, instead of rewiring Jct to use named parameters for the numbers in jct/link and /shield, I just decided to pass on the project and save it for another day. – TMF18:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I've updated the sandbox code and the US-type routes are handled better now. I'm just trying to find some better tests cases at the moment to reduce the number of redlinks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
If you need a model for the portal, P:USRD is featured, but the point isn't about a portal per se. CRWP can't do things that USRD does without a separate banner. the USRD banner feeds all of the highway articles into state- and national-level assessment categories, meaning we can track how well each state is doing. WP:USRD/A/S is the outgrowth of that effort. As it is now, ONRD as a CRWP subproject, has its own banner template and track its assessments. The eventual goal for WP:HWY is to set up continental taskforces for all continents except North America. (Mexico will probably be lumped with South America as Latin America and the Caribbean may be separated.) Then we'll need to modify subproject banners to allow them to feed into a set of global assessment categories. That's a project that CRWP can't do without a separate banner, or "permission" to modify the WP:CANADA banner. That's just one example of a problem. Imzadi1979→20:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Very interesting i see your point, WP:CAN roads should use there own banner if they need to do this aswell. I dont mind either way to be honest, i was just trying to help Kumioko get hes idea across (i support whatever a projects decides). Most projects are not nearly as organized as the roads ones are and this type of merger usually helps semi active projects get reinvigorated. But like i said the roads projects are more involved/organized/sub-divided the even the Canada project, in fact road project looks as complicated as the History project :-)Moxy (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Article passed GA review. Congratulations. Perhaps you would like to review one of the nominated articles for GA in turn? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I left a short comment at the Saskatchewan task force about the different shield designs that SK uses for certain routes. – TMF00:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Definitely. What you need to do first is create text files (.txt) for each county in Washington that has a list of each county's articles. For the Java program I have that does all of the legwork, the files need to be titled "<county name>.txt" (without "County") and the files have to be formatted as follows:
Washington State Route 1
Washington State Route 2 (1970###2010)
Washington State Routes 3## 5 and 6
So, each line has one route, en dashes have to be replaced with three pound symbols, and commas have to be replaced with two pound symbols. This is so the program has no problems with reading the raw data. If you're using a Mac, please save the files with DOS or Unicode encoding if possible. (The default UNIX encoding makes the files a bit difficult to edit on Windows.) Once you have all of the files together, dump 'em in a folder called "County lists" and send 'em to me in an e-mail (using the link to the left, or I can give you the address on IRC). From there, I can take care of the rest and get things up and running. – TMF23:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The program's designed to ignore any listings that aren't assessed as articles, i.e. Stub-Class, FA-Class, and the others in between. Redirects could be included - it won't hurt the program any - but it'll just note that the page isn't assessed with a quality class and move on. – TMF00:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay If that's how you want to interpret that, that's fine. I tagged them as redirects because they are redirects; it makes sense to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, there's a huge difference between tagging categories, articles, templates, etc., and tagging redirects. The former items are actual things - things that are visible to readers and the most casual editors on a daily basis. All of the items in one of those classes have the same usefulness as another in that same class. But all redirects are not created equal: some, like New York State Route 44A are important redirects, created by merges or other means. Others, like the Utah route example I took exception to, are little more than maintenance redirects that don't deserve any extra attention, like being tagged for a project. If someone decides to tag redirects in the former group, that's their prerogative, but I have a bit of an issue with someone tagging the latter. – TMF00:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure If that's how you feel, then I suggest that you talk about it with persons at relevant WikiProjects to change those pages and template documentation. It certainly is the case that some redirects will be of greater interest than others, but I'm personally not invested in which ones are which; sometimes I just tag them, usually I don't. It was an arbitrary project to tag those redirects. If anyone wants to assign them Bottom or NA importance, they will be safely categorized away from public view, whereas more substantial redirects can be given a higher priority and put on a WikiProject watchlist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
All redirects in USRD are already assigned NA-importance, and rightfully so. In any event, changing a redirect's importance does nothing for my view that some shouldn't be tagged in the first place. – TMF00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking to get your thoughts on this proposed revision
Hi there TwinsMetsFan, I'm a dual baseball team fan as well; though that isn't my reason for stopping by -- I've proposed a revision of the PepsiCo article, and thought that you may have an interest in weighing in on its discussion here: Talk:PepsiCo#Thoughts_on_revision. Though the article hasn't yet been graded by the Wikipedia:WikiProject New York, it certainly seems relevant to your area of expertise (as I believe it is among the largest companies headquartered in New York state). Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to you! My my, how this year has flown by, and hopefully next year is prosperous for us all. And may the GA and FA gods shine upon yourself and the project in the new year. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, TwinsMetsFan. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I'll see what I can do. I upgraded to a new version of QGIS, and I'm still figuring out what I need to do to have it output an SVG similar in size and structure to those generated by the earlier version. – TMF07:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your work on highway articles across the world in 2010, whether it was converting articles to {{Infobox road}} or working on converting articles to WP:RJL or building the WP:HWY assessment infrastructure. Even though we still have a long ways to go, and my goal of a universal {{Infobox road}} and WP:RJL was not realized, we have made many improvements that will go a long way towards improving the state of the English Wikipedia highway articles. --Rschen775421:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Routes needing mileposts
Hello, TwinsMetsFan/Archive 12! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
Why there is a link: "Interstate 295 (disambiguation)" instead of "Interstate 295"? It would not be perfect if there is a link "Interstate 295 (disambiguation)" to make it redirect to "Interstate 295". May I try to change it back to the link: "Interstate 295" so there will be no redirect so it make it perfect?--Jasonfitz (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello TwinsMetsFan, NHRHS2010 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey as you may recall we talked about some of the "to do" list with Interstate 376. Anyways, I removed the bullets and converted it more to prose, while adding some sources to back it up. I was trying to get it nominated for a good article, but it didn't pass. I'm hoping to clean it up some more. Jgera5 (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Lake Welch Parkway & Tiorati Brook Road
TwinsMetsFan, I have to say, I love the 1955 Thiells Quadrangle map you added as a reference to the Lake Welch Parkway. It gave a lot more info, even if that info is incomplete. For example, it doesn't show the existance of the Lake Welch Parkway, but does show the existance of the Palisades Interstate Parkway interchange with just Tiorati Brook Road. But I have some other history I can add to both parkways; UglyBridges.com indicates that two of the bridges for Lake Welch were built in 1967, and the interchange with Tiorati Brook Road, and the brook itself were made in 1970, and that the interchange for Palisades Interstate Parkway and what is now Lake Welch Parkway were built in 1951. I'm surprised that PIPC was making parkways that late into the 1960's. Now all we need is an exact date for both roads. ----DanTD (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Racepacket and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Vroom, vroom... Thank you for all your hard work. May you wear the crowns well, and may the crown sign lead you on the highway to more outstanding articles. – SMasters (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Triple Crown jewels
Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Triple crown upon TwinsMetsFan for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC, particularly on articles on U.S. roads. Thank you for all your contributions to the project! – SMasters (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, TMF. Hopefully you get this. Ridge Road (Western New York) contains an unsourced claim about the Ridge referring to the Niagara Escarpment, but I can't actually find any support for this idea. The Escarpment lies a few miles south of the Ridge through Niagara County at least, and I think it's actually Ridgeway Avenue that follows the Escarpment through Greece. So I'm curious where the statement in the lead came from. Can you shed any light on this? Thanks! PowersT17:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on List of State Highways in Kentucky (6000–6999) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. –Fredddie™00:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello TwinsMetsFan! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Definitely not true. I can only speak for myself, but it is good to see you back, even though we disagree about what direction the project should go at this point in time. --Rschen775408:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It's more than a disagreement at this point. Honestly, the difference is so great at this point that I don't see any possibility of reconciliation. – TMF01:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's definitely not. We've definitely gone through much more (WP:SRNC, three ArbComs, and my WikiBreak in 2010). I can only speak for myself again, but I've definitely missed you in the project and channel over the last year. No ulterior motives or anything. --Rschen775408:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I have to agree with Rschen here. While you were gone, I couldn't tell you the number of times I wanted to tell or show you something and you weren't there. Being the selfish jerk I am, I want you to come back (again)! But we can't reconcile if we don't talk it out. I hope you'll at least consider that. –Fredddie™08:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
AutoWikiBrowser
I just downloaded AutoWikiBrowser. How do I use it?
I would like to have a way to automatically convert exit lists to templates.
What do you suggest?
Allen (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a user manual for AWB at WP:AWB/MAN. That should help you figure out how different parts of the program work. As for the exit lists, I didn't solely use AWB to convert exit lists over to templates; it was a combination of a series of regular expressions and some post-replacement manual editing. – TMF07:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I tried writing a program to do this automatically... but because of the variations in style, you'd practically need a compiler to do it. Needless to say, I gave up. --Rschen775408:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, both, for your response.
The user manual is like Greek to me. I thought the program would be much more user-friendly than it is.
If there are other resources to help edit exit lists, that would be great.
The existing mileposts are all sourced to the NYSDOT TVR. Thus, any new mileposts need to be sourced to some other reference since the TVR doesn't have any mileposts other than the ones already listed. – TMF01:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I can scan it again and clip the link, but my connection is weak tonight. I also tried to track down the distance between SCR's 100 and 108, but it kept dying on me as I was trying to get the footage right. Notice I wrote footage, not mileage. The distance is that short. ----DanTD (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You'll have to convert it to miles. (By the way, the link gives me 394 feet). 394/5280 = 0.08 miles, give or take 0.005 miles. – TMF01:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
One other thing between Interstate 495 and Suffolk County Road 6; Should I start off from the eastbound service road, the westbound service road, or beneath the main lanes of the LIE? Because right now I've got it marked from the eastbound service road and the distance is showing up at 0.3 miles again. ----DanTD (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the 0.54 miles that the DOT gives between the LIMP and I-495 measures the distance to the westbound service road. Thus, any measurements based on the I-495 junction should be measured from the westbound service road. – TMF02:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Westbound it is, then. And I'm getting 0.2 on NY 111. As soon as I add it, the mileage will be completed. ----DanTD (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Date of Copyedit tags
Hi. When you change other tags into {{copyedit}} tags, please could you also replace the date with the current month, as it is in fact a new {copy edit} tag. This would help us to keep our work prioritised. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Plus, please could you take more care when converting {{Cleanup}} to {{copyedit}} to ensure that copy editing really is needed. There was little to nothing wrong with the writing of most of those sections. The one problem I did notice, at least in New York State Route 27, was a very heavy case of WP:OVERLINK. That's not a copy editing issue, though. --Stfg (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, but I disagree with your assessment of NY 27. Large parts of the section are poorly written ("This section of Sunrise Highway wasn't even divided", "Some residents have been waiting for a potential pedestrian bridge") and the section's layout is atrocious. I'd clean it up myself if I had more time and interest in that part of the state, but I really don't. – TMF04:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I also disagree with your tag removal on NY 25A. "some feel Northern Boulevard becomes North Hempstead Turnpike", "so a case can be made that Northern Boulevard". Those aren't sentences that have any place in a well-written article. – TMF04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
It says that, because it's the truth. The segment in the Islip-Islip Terrace area wasn't divided at a time when the rest of Sunrise Highway was, and residents of East Patchogue were waiting for a pedestrian bridge in the vicinity of Washington Avenue. ----DanTD (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is the way the sentence is worded, and the word choice used within the sentences, not the content... There's other, more encyclopedic ways to say the same thing. – TMF05:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Copy editing is how we improve the quality of the writing; it has nothing to do with the content. Information can be true and the words could be badly written, either way, the article would need attention. Imzadi 1979→05:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
USRD banner
Any thoughts on updating the links in the banner for the new TF locations? the FL-CRTF and MI-CHTF no longer exist, although state tags are still in use for potential tracking purposes. (I'd leave them alone, but link to the state TF page instead of their old TF subpages.) Thanks. Imzadi 1979→22:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Suffolk County Road 94 did not reach Calverton in 1963
Take a look at a map of Calverton, New York in 1966 from Historical Aerials Online. You'll neither find the Long Island Expressway nor Suffolk CR 94. In fact, if you look at Calverton in 1969, you'll find that Edwards Avenue is the temporary terminus of only the Long Island Expressway. I'm pretty sure the segment between the L.I.E. and the current Suffolk CR 94A didn't exist until the early-1970's. ----DanTD (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Be that as it may, the official definition of CR 94 was extended to the LIE in 1963. As the Wading River section of the CR 94 definition implies, the official definition and what actually exists can be two completely different things.
According to my maps, the section west of CR 94A was built ca. 1973 and co-designated as NY 24 and CR 94. – TMF22:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know, I remember it well, but I thought part of that was that if one of the disjunctive elements of the compound itself contains a space, there needs to be spaces on either side of the dash (cf. Van Ness – UDC (WMATA station)). Although I can't find that yet, I swear I read it somewhere. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't realized that that part had been changed ... God, that whole thing was so confusing. (especially since so many article titles still preserve that) It seems, though, that there is one situation where we still do use the spacing ... in a range where both elements have spaces. OK. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I just looked through it, too ... I see that I hadn't voted on the spacing-with-spaced-elements question, although I thought I had, which might be where my confusion came from. Oh well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
That naming convention will have to be fixed as it currently runs afoul of the MOS. The line "For any name that requires an en dash, if there is a space between one or both of the elements, the en dash is spaced, per the WP:MOSDASH guideline." is based on MOS guidelines that existed prior to mid-2011. Please see MOS:DASH for the current guidelines. – TMF17:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been adding needs-kml= to the {{USRD}} transclusions. Seeing your work with KML, I've left all the pages titled New York State Route X alone; however, I probably tagged all the NY pages that aren't named that way. --Rschen775421:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
IBR modules
Not sure if you saw my post on Template talk:Infobox road, but I proposed moving the section junction lists to a subtemplate, which I have since created at Template:Infobox road/meta/junctions. It works, as far as content is concerned, but I'm not having any luck getting the header colors to work on the subtemplate. Since you have a more intimate knowledge of the backend of the template than anyone else, I was hoping you could look at it.
No disambiguation is needed. The user who "moved" the page did it incorrectly and unnecessarily, and the move has been reverted. – TMF(talk)23:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea how this will play out, but this wheel warring I'm getting involved in disturbs me, since I clearly made efforts to discuss this, and yet he actsunilaterally in the mistaken belief that consensus on projects is all that matters (it cannot go against Wikipedia policy without a specific exception). It's been a long time since I personally encountered this sort of defiant behavior here, so I'm at a bit of a loss. Basically, we all need to resolve this the way we're supposed to. Any ideas? Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I see you created the map in the infobox. It would greatly improve the understanding of the article if you added Mecklenburg to the map. I know where it is but most readers would not.
Auchansa (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
USRD banner
Can we get the state assessment project implemented for Michigan? Template talk:U.S. Roads WikiProject/Archive 2#Cross-project tagging has a request where I asked if anyone was opposed to oping Michigan and Maryland in to this scheme, and no one did object. At this point, I don't care about the other states, but it would be nice to get the MI situation confirmed. I'd love to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan/Recognized content when all of the highways are dropped in, since technically they should be there now.
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.
Hi - I see you're evaluating articles on WikiProject banners. Could I mention that if a building or other geographic entity has been inadvertantly tagged with "WikiProject New York", when it's actually located within New York City, could you change the WikiProject to "WikiProject New York City" instead? Some helpful soul was mass mis-tagging articles a while back. He stopped and changed to NYC when I pointed out the error, but he never went back and corrected them. I caught a bunch and changed them, but never got through the entire list of mis-tags. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Assessment
Could you please explain how it comes that you rated my articles on State Legislatures (which contains the names of people who made History in New York, and a bit of the actual History, in its context) as of "low" importance, while 1930 state highway renumbering (New York), a simple list of numbers of roads, and one-time event, as of "top" importance (it was later "downgraded" to only high importance)? Kraxler (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You're confusing three completely independent importance assessment systems. The articles on New York State Legislatures are assessed for importance based on the criteria at WP:WPNY/A (which considers an article's importance to the state of New York) while the renumbering article is not tagged for WPNY and is instead assessed based on the criteria at WP:NYSR/A (importance to New York's state highway system) and WP:USRD/A (importance to the United States' road network). While the quality of an article will rarely vary between projects, the importance of an article will vary considerably based on the scope of the involved projects. – TMF(talk)15:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a little unsure why you've reverted my edit on U.S. Route 9 in New York. After I reviewed WP:NYSR, it came to my attention that, as you probably know, roads need to be introduced using their full name, and then they can be referred to in shorthand (i.e. New York State Route 22 or NYS Route 22 vs. NY 22). That was the point of the edit I made on the US 9 article; in addition, the original author of the route description heavily referred to the highway as simply "9". In many situations throughout this article that can be a bit confusing, and I tried to solve that by changing (I left out a few that I said I would fix) the ugly "9"s to either "Route 9" or "US 9". Franky, I do not understand why that would cause the edit to be reverted with an "uh, no" and would appreciate an explanation. C16sh (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
As the person who wrote that, I can say that you misinterpreted it. The point of the section is that the first mention of a New York state route in the article needs to be spelled out as "New York State Route # (NY #)" or something similar, and any subsequent mentions of New York state routes can use "NY #", regardless of whether or not it's the same route.
The reason for the short, snippy edit summary is that I'm tired of having to revert edits that are essentially worthless. Your junction list edits introduce nothing but clutter and show a clear misunderstanding of how junction lists are formatted in New York, and your prose edits incorrectly remove non-breaking spaces and have unnecessarily changed the appearance of links. What you claim is "cleanup" is anything but. If you're interested in mopping up articles, I suggest you edit another state, as 99% of New York road articles are fine as they are. – TMF(talk)02:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
South Carolina shield graphic
I was looking at List of numbered highways in South Carolina (which I will soon edit) and noticed that the shield sets seemed to have numbers too small compared to what I saw last month when passing through on I-77/26/95 then I-85/26. I thought maybe at first that I was being influenced from primarily seeing them on Interstate guide signs but I found this page which confirms my thought that side-of-the-road confirming markers also have the larger digits, noticeably on one- and two-digit highways but also in places on ones with three digits. I note your sources on your template page (though I also note that the shield graphics for the actual routes were created by someone else) so perhaps SCDOT reevaluated after the initial marker posting and decided to go larger. Not sure if this is notable enough to spur a change to the graphic, but I thought that I'd pass it along. Opinion? Mapsax (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you assessed the quality of James Conte today. I've recently noticed a number of articles being assessed very shortly after the subject's death. I'd like to suggest that it makes more sense to wait a week or so before doing so, as most bios likely get more attention during that time than any other, and the assessment is likely to need to be raised. —[AlanM1(talk)]—23:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
It's something I'll think about in the future; however, WPNY very recently cleared a four-year assessment backlog, so at this point I prefer to assess articles immediately to keep the quality and importance unassessed categories empty. In any event, if the article is expanded in the near future, it's easy for someone - such as the editor who submitted the expansion - to take five seconds and change the class to reflect that. – TMF(talk)02:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The DOT route log and TVR put 163's beginning at 5S and its endpoint at 10, meaning the current progression is correct. – TMF(talk)12:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Your edit of Talk:Hommocks Middle School to put in in the subproject of New York, was incorrect in that you put in in the Long Island project, except this is in Westchester. I reverted that part back to the New York State project because I don't think there is a subproject covering this. Hudson valley does not quite fit since this is on LI Sound and technically away from the Hudson Valley. I don't know if there is a need for more sub projects...
Since many Westchester locations along the sound coast are currently tagged for WPHV, I've retagged the article for WPHV. You're more than welcome to discuss whether or not all of Westchester should fall within the Hudson Valley project at either WT:HVNY or WT:WPNY. – TMF(talk)00:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
New York State Route 319 was a state highway in Chenango County, New York, in the United States. It was 5.47 miles (8.80 km) long and connected the hamlet of Preston to the nearby city of Norwich. What became NY 319 was originally built during the early 19th century as the privately owned Norwich and Preston Turnpike. The state of New York assumed ownership in the early 20th century, and the Preston–Norwich state highway was designated as NY 319 as part of the 1930 renumbering of state highways in New York. Maintenance of NY 319 was split between the state and the city of Norwich, with the New York State Department of Transportation handling the part of the route west of the city limits. In 1962, the New York State Legislature approved a highway maintenance swap that would transfer the state-maintained section of NY 319 to Chenango County when a new alignment was constructed for NY 23 through the northwestern part of the county. The project was completed in July 1984, at which time the NY 319 designation was completely removed and Chenango County assumed maintenance of the route's former alignment west of Norwich. The new county road was redesignated County Route 10A. (Full article...)
Could you take a look at the discussion on my talk page? I've been discussing with Heights (talk·contribs) how to disambiguate some expressways in China. Since you did more backend stuff you may have more ideas than I do. –Fredddie™04:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Maps
Hey, TMF. I guess I'm what you would call the newest member of WP:USRD. I'm trying to create a map for the first time, and I'm trying to follow the tutorial, but it's pretty badly outdated. I got the layers correct, but creating an SVG using the print composer is what I'm having trouble with. If you could help, that'd be great. Thanks. –TCN7JM07:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Questionable reverts
Regarding some of the reverts you've made to my additions:
Why is adding cities that are listed on signs on the routes themselves clutter or unnecessary? If they are unacceptable on New York articles, why are they allowed on junction tables in every other state?
Regarding the replacement of Template:NYintbtm, acceptable junction tables everywhere else has the listing on the bottom showing the conversion between miles and kilometers (such as Template:Jctbtm and Template:LegendRJL). The NY template does not have it hence the attempted replacement.
When I add the Template:Attached KML to articles, why does it matter whether or not the "|display=title,inline" is there too?
The mention of NY 980E in the Route 71 article was sourced. Similar redirects and mentioned were created for many other reference routes. Why delete this one?
New York articles follow a specific set of standards that, while fully compliant with the relevant parts of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, may differ from the practices of other states. As I told another user a while back, articles in the state of New York are already at or exceed the standards laid out on that page. There might be exceptions on some lower-class articles, but that probably has more to do with the article being sub-par. The one area that is fine across the board is our junction lists, so unless edits to them make a legitimate improvement (like fixing a route number, a terminus direction, or some other factual error), they will generally be reverted. Please note in particular that New York does not use colors, nor does New York add cities or locations to entries unless the entry in question is intended to replicate the contents of a "big green sign" for an interchange on a freeway.
The explanation I was given about the conversion line on {{jctbtm}} is that it's only there because some articles with the template may not have a junction lists with columns for miles and kilometers. Every article in New York does have these columns because every article has used junction list templates for a long time, and thus {{NYintbtm}} doesn't have the conversion line because it's not necessary. It's not New York's problem that some states have substandard junction lists.
The edit to NY 71 was reverted because it was made in conjunction with other changes that I view as the addition of clutter for the reasons above. It was also fairly hastily shoehorned into the RD. – TMF(talk)03:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
As for {{Attached KML}}... it's personal preference on my part. Basically, I view KML as a "necessary evil" on articles, and I'm not going to advertise it more than absolutely needed. That's also why I generally put the template below {{Commons category}} in the External links section if the article has both boxes, as I see the Commons template as having more use and being more valuable and important than the KML template. Some users have added display,title to transclusions that I've added, and that's fine. If someone really wants to have the links in the title on a specific article, I'm not going to revert them because I don't think it's important enough of an issue to battle over. – TMF(talk)03:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The edit was part of a series of edits to switch assessment for WikiProject Columbia University from the WPUS banner to the WPNY banner. Generally, I just replaced the former with the latter if Columbia was the only "supported project" listed and the article was assessed as Low-importance for WPUS. If anyone wants to readd the WPUS banner to any of the articles I removed it from, they're more than welcome to; all I ask is that the WPNY/Columbia banner be left in place so the article will continue to be assessed for the Columbia University project. – TMF(talk)03:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Request for assistance
Hi there, might I ask for your Admin assistance? I need someone to delete the redirect for the Manitou Incline, which currently redirects to a sub-section of the Manitou and Pike's Peak Railway article. I have built a 'Manitou Incline' page in my sandbox and am ready to go live with it, but can't create the page because of the redirect. I would sincerely appreciate any help or advice you can provide. I used to be fairly active on WP, but haven't been editing much in a while, and my skills are rusty. Thanks. Ahodges7 talk01:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, TwinsMetsFan. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 08:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
sign.jpg){kind=link}
