| Revision as of 05:50, 8 July 2008 editNE2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers190,449 edits →AARoads← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:43, 23 January 2012 edit undoImzadi1979 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors151,547 editsm +categories | ||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(45d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Interstate Highways/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Shortcut|WT:IH}} | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| {{archive box|auto=yes}} | |||
| ] | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| I'd think the article name for ] is a little misleading. Since the article gives information on Clark County 215 as well, I'd suggest either splitting off the CC 215 info into its own new article (and merge it back when the beltway is completed) or rename the article and have two infoboxes. Any ideas? --] (]) 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :The beltway is complete! However it has not been fully upgraded from an expressway to a freeway. ] 18:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :I think the best option is to rename it. I-215 is only one segment of the larger Bruce Woodbury Beltway. --] <sup>] - ]</sup> 20:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, renaming it would eliminate the need for two infoboxes. --] <sup>] - ]</sup> 20:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Yikes, I didn't see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clark_County_Route_215&action=history --] (]) 14:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I suggest ], since the media does not use the ceremonial name: --] 20:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I support Las Vegas Beltway as well. I think it's a better name only on the basis that I know where it is if you mention that to me. No matter what happens, the actual article needs to be cleaned up some. '''--]<sup> ] / ]</sup>''' 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That name works for me too, since it appears to be used frequently. Also, echoing MPD's thoughts, the Las Vegas moniker seems more appealing because it instantly provides the location of the route. --] <sup>] - ]</sup> 21:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Reminder from USRD == | |||
| In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces: | |||
| # Each project needs to remain aware of developments at ] and subpages to ensure that each project is aware of decisions / discussions that affect that project. It is impossible to notify every single project about every single discussion that may affect it. Therefore, it is the state highway wikiproject's responsiblity to monitor discussions. | |||
| # If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it. | |||
| # USRD, '''in most to nearly all''' cases, will not interfere with a properly functioning state highway wikiproject. All projects currently existing are "properly functioning" for the purposes mentioned here. All task forces currently existing are not "properly functioning" (that is why they are task forces). Departments of USRD (for example, MTF, shields, assessment, INNA) may have specific requirements for the state highway wikiprojects, but complaints regarding those need to be taken up with those departments. | |||
| # However, this is a reminder that USRD standards need to be followed by the state highway wikiprojects, regardless of the age of the wikiproject. | |||
| Regards, ''']''' (] ]) 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == More opinions needed for I-355 FAC == | |||
| More comments and opinions would be useful for the ] ]. So far only four people, including myself, have weighed in with comments and opinions. Existing comments are being addressed, but to improve the article I'd be comfortable with more comments. —] <span style="font-size:x-small">(</span>]<span style="font-size:x-small">)</span> 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == AARoads == | |||
| I was told AARoads.com's interstate guide is not reliable. Are you kidding me? Their site has 25-30 guys working around the clock to keep up to the minute, accurate information on ALL interstate highways. All of their info is cited information too. For example, I-26 expansion in recent years. Look at all the local newspaper articles they site for that. If AAroads information isn't reliable, I don't know what is. I would like to hear why. -] (]) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. --''']<sup> ]</sup>''' 16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::AARoads does not fall under the personal websites category. I can see how you'd think that, but take a venture on their site for a bit. You'll see it is a collective effort by several road experts who verify their findings with very good sources. -] (]) 17:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just looked at the page with the webmasters and contributors to the site and nothing there implies they are experts in the field. From that it just appears they are fans of roads and nothing more. Do any of the contributors have published works in the field of roads or highways? --''']<sup> ]</sup>''' 17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Nothing in book form or what not yet, but that is going to happen soon with the growth of the site over the last couple years. The site is clearly more than a run of the mill site I can make in 30 seconds. AARoads is very documented with every bit of it being reliable information. They have clearly done their homework, so I would say this site is more than capable of being the source for the mileage of a certain interstate. -] (]) 03:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Clearly you are missing the point here, are they the ones going out and taking the measurements? No. They are citing mileage from another source, so use that source to cite the wikipedia article. This is seeming more like a conflict of interest issue the more you argue it since there are advertisement issues with the site as well, those would need to be removed from the site as well, perhaps you can talk to the webmaster to have them removed. --''']<sup> ]</sup>''' 04:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| And most importantly, we are dealing with roads here. I've read maps since I was 4 years old and I consider myself to be an expert on the interstate highway system. So for them to have all the sources they have only adds to them being road experts already. Double the value. These aren't exactly articles on stem cell research. -] (]) 04:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Clearly you don't know what an expert is then. The policy clearly states: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The site clearly fails this. So, unless you have a valid reason that refutes this, other than I have been reading a map since I was 4. What does stem cell research have to do with anything?? --''']<sup> ]</sup>''' 04:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Horderca1 is correct; AARoads is not a reliable source. It can be useful for finding reliable sources by narrowing down dates that something opened, but cannot in itself be cited. --] 04:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Those people on that site are experts whether you want to believe it or not. The problem here is many Wiki admins or whatever go by the letter of the law to the tee here without much flexibility or so I've found. Have an open mind about it and you'd see that AARoads is very reliable. Especially when it is something as simple as citing the length of a road. Anyone with an odometer in their car can measure mileage. That's what researching stem cell research means.-] (]) 05:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Under my own definition of a reliable source, sure, they are reliable. However, by Misplaced Pages standards, they are not reliable, and GA and FA will never take AARoads as a source. Therefore, we should not cite them. --''']''' (] ]) 05:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :More to the point, they're not original sources. They (mostly) don't serve as agents for the state or federal governments that manage the road system; they research, cite and read maps just like we do here, except we don't provide our own conclusions to what we see. This applies to Kurumi, Interstate-guide and other fansites as well. It doesn't apply to anything .gov (within reason... though I have yet to see a wickedly wrong .gov source) or to websites of people who may have worked '''directly''' with the material in question ( comes to mind). —] <span style="font-size:x-small">(</span>]<span style="font-size:x-small">)</span> 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::], thought original research was disallowed. I think things are taken way too seriously on Misplaced Pages. The policies you speak of are changed everyday by Wiki admins. I've seen it with my work on ]. I can't make any edits without countless people hitting me over the head even though everything I do is constructive. Is AARoads scholarly? No, but its a big step up from the Misplaced Pages articles. Not a knock on Wiki, but AARoads specializes in Interstate Highways, while Wiki has articles on anything and everything. So, I really believe AARoads as a source can greatly enhance the Wiki Interstate pages. -] (]) 05:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fansites are still technically tertiary sources. If the topic was sufficiently complicated or the secondary sources impossible to find (neither of which apply), maybe. But as it is, the good, sourceable fansites happen to provide sources for ''their'' articles, so it's up to us to not be lazy and find the secondary source ourselves for inclusion here. Better to get it right now than in FAC later. :-) —] <span style="font-size:x-small">(</span>]<span style="font-size:x-small">)</span> 06:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::, , -] (]) 06:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| If I understand this right, AARoads was being used as a reference for the length - however, it in turn cites the FHWA Route Finder for most if not all of those lengths. So it makes no sense to cite AARoads instead of the FHWA Route Finder, which is what I think others were saying above. --] <sup>] - ]</sup> 08:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| AARoads is updated daily, those FHWA Route Finders are not. -] (]) 17:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :And what's better? Having a citation needed marker next to the mileage on ] or using a reliable source to backup the mileage. Again this is the length of a road, not whether or not the common cold can be remedied with honey. Not rocket science. -] (]) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) - the same one that is available from the FHWA. --] <sup>] - ]</sup> 17:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Fair enough. Might as well use that. But for a route like I-26 or something that has been expanded in recent years, what do we use to site its mileage in the time being til the next FHWA Route Finder? -] (]) 17:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| If it's in Google Maps or any other mapping service, that's been held up as acceptable as Google Maps imports GIS data from the states to calculate mileages. I have also cited specific GIS databases (which at times requires analysis, but not necessary your own conclusions). For I-355, the highway is too new to be in either the state GIS database or Google Maps. Individual newspaper articles also provide mileage estimates, to varying degrees of accuracy. —] <span style="font-size:x-small">(</span>]<span style="font-size:x-small">)</span> 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : See, this is the thing: are we going to go by ] or ]/]? It seems to me that the usual way of applying ] is that when there is a debate as to whether a particular rule applies to a particular case or not, ] (rather than ]) decides. As far as I understand, only ], ] and ] override ]. So it boils down to: let's get more community members, preferably those who are themselves experts in the subject, to provide feedback on this thread. ] (]) 17:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : P.S. <s>I have no opinion of my own about whether aaroads.com is a reliable source or not.</s> I think the fact that the name of the website mimics or may cause confusion with ] <u>may</u> weigh somewhat against the reliability of this source. ] (]) 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Heh - I haven't seen that argument before. I think "AA" comes from the first names of the webmasters: --] 05:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme == | |||
| As you ], we at the Misplaced Pages 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at ]. | |||
| *The '''new C-Class''' represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class. | |||
| *The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of ], and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects. | |||
| *A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as ]. | |||
| Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at ]. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. ] is already finding and listing C-Class articles. | |||
| Please ] with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Misplaced Pages 1.0 scheme! For the ], <font color="green">]</font>''' <small>(<font color="red">]</font>)'''</small> 21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Is currently redirected to a state route page. Those in NY will obviously feel ] is a more meaningful road, but which route is more broadly notable? I know as an interstate geek I'm more interested in ] in Alabama than ] lets say. Interstates are much more notable than state routes. This ] has its own page and I-587 does not? Even worse, ]. This is insanity!!! >>>] (]) 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't have a problem with it. If I had my way ] would redirect to ]. Even if both articles were improved to GA status they would be redundant. Another example that does redirect is ], although in this case I doubt I-305 will ever be signed. ] (]) 04:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I actually agree on I-580 (and probably I-587). The only thing to ensure is that the coverage it would get as a separate article is still all there, with the exception of a full infobox. --] 05:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:43, 23 January 2012
Redirect to:
Categories: