| Revision as of 07:25, 16 October 2008 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 45d) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Interstate Highways/Archive 4.← 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 | ||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 6 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}} | |||
| ] | |||
| == 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) | |||
| ::I really think that a way to deal with this is to determine what the main article is. Then create satellite articles for the other roads with the appropriate infobox and a brief description of the road. With a pointer to the main article for the road for the rest of information. I suspect that is not going to be a popular position, but from a reader's point of view it likely makes the most sense. Basically the satellite articles would only have information specific to the 'secondary' route. Do these multiple named roads ever have exit number changes for one of these short stretches? If so, the satellite article approach would allow a clearer presentation for the reader. ] (]) 06:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wouldn't the reader want a detailed description at ] (or whatever it redirects to) rather than having to click to ] to see it? --] 06:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Those looking for I-587 are not looking for NY 28. It is confusing. They are not the same route. --{{country data NZL|country flagicon2|variant=|size=}} ] (]) 05:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Another article I can think of that is in this situation is ]. I know I'd like some sort of description at ]. But at the very least, I'd like to see a section in NY 28 titled "Interstate 587", that basically is like a mini article. That right now seems like a logical first step. How about this: let's create the I-587 section within NY 28, and see how much we have. If it looks like we can get enough together for an article, let's do it. I mean, it has no exits, so we don't need an exit list, or for that matter, an infobox, really. '''--]<sup> ] / ]</sup>''' 06:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I disagree with the necessity of creating a separate section. The history is identical to a realignment of NY 28, and the description would similarly duplicate the first bit of NY 28. --] 06:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Aside: the circle reconstruction actually added , but it's just for a park and ride and wouldn't belong in an exit list anyway. --] 06:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The reader would like to know about ]. Redirects can be confusing if you wanted road 1 and found yourself at road 2. Most readers likely don't understand redirects. So having a summary with a link to the article on the longer road would appear to be a good choice. The fact is, there is no perfect solution. The question is what is the best for the readers, the encyclopedia and for updating. ] (]) 19:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Vegas makes an interesting point. Someone looking for I-587 could be very confused by the redirect. Also, the section where I-587 is is confusing in itself. The I-587 page should be rebuilt as a separate page. NYSDOT considers NY 28 and I-587 separate roads, so we should too. --] (]) 15:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| It is confusing to the reader when the blurb about I-587 starts and ends in the NY 28 article. In any event, an interstate highway is much more notable than a state route. Now obviously those who have been writing the article know NY 28 as well because New York contributors are the ones writing both NY 28 and I-587. So there seems to be a conflict of interest on that point. A user in Texas is going to find I-587 much more notable and NY 28 probably not notable at all. >>>] (]) 22:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with Woodchuck, I live in Wisconsin and an Interstate highway in NY means alot more than a state route in NY. The problem is, people who live close to these routes write the articles. That isn't necessarily wrong, but it does create perspective problems. We need to see things in a broad perspective as that is what Misplaced Pages is. --{{country data NZL|country flagicon2|variant=|size=}} ] (]) 05:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I would also say that the uniqueness of this interstate should give it its own page. I would say most people that visit Misplaced Pages pages concerning roads are roadgeeks. Well, I know I'm fascinated with I-587 because of its unusual status. --{{country data NZL|country flagicon2|variant=|size=}} ] (]) 05:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Separate articles please! What does this call that stretch of road? That's right, I-587. --] (]) 19:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Just noting that ] has now proceeded with the split. --] | ] 22:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| You guys, don't play around with reverts and no warring. I have no problem with keeping it with a seperate article, and the article size is not too important. I think we have enough contents on I-587 to keep it a seperate page though it totally concurs with NY 28.--] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *As those two users go; its better to keep them a two seperate page. I-587 looks like it has enough contents and information for a seperate page. This does not matter how big the aritlce is, some aritcle can be only two pages long, although I-587 is not a full-access freeway, and it does not have an exit. Next time guys provide a summary, and discussion page link for merge or split. Just playing ] is not a good idea, people won't know if is a good faith or bad faith like this.--] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*Fair enough --{{country data NZL|country flagicon2|variant=|size=}} ] (]) 14:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages 0.7 articles have been selected for Interstate Highway System == | |||
| ] is a collection of English Misplaced Pages articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The ] has made an . | |||
| We would like to ask you to review the . These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at ]. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at ]. | |||
| A , sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with ], although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. | |||
| We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at ] of ]. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Misplaced Pages 1.0 Editorial team, ] 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| A user wants to change the design of the template. See ]. --''']''' (] ]) 07:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Interstate 81 == | |||
| Hey guys, I was making a few edits to ] when I noticed how it's still considered a start article (probably should be C-Class...), and it only has one reference (which was the one I added today). If I had the resources, I'd add references myself, particularly for the length of the interstate. If anyone wants to help out, I'll be (slowly) working on it! --] (]) 21:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:43, 23 January 2012
Redirect to:
Categories: