| Revision as of 15:48, 6 July 2024 editRoadFan294857 (talk | contribs)11 edits →The I-90 dispute: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:06, 7 July 2024 edit undoMoabdave (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators12,647 edits →The I-90 dispute: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
| The RFC left very unconvincing results and ended in no consensus, with no end in sight to the decades-long debate of I-90 junctions. I think a clear discussion of how to connect policies and guidelines is needed here, especially with ]ership of that article. ] (]) 15:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC) | The RFC left very unconvincing results and ended in no consensus, with no end in sight to the decades-long debate of I-90 junctions. I think a clear discussion of how to connect policies and guidelines is needed here, especially with ]ership of that article. ] (]) 15:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :I don't see how enforcing a guideline that has been in place for over a decade and used on hundreds of articles equates to ownership of a single article by a single person. I'll repeat what I said in the RFC. The point of the "10 junctions limit" is to keep the infobox at a manageable length so it doesn't crowd the body of the article. Maybe some of the longer road articles could support more than 10 and still keep the infobox from crowding out the article prose, I don't know. I think it would be a stronger argument to propose an alternative guideline and create sandbox copies of some o f our longer road articles with different infoboxes to demonstrate. I think that would be a more effective way to convince me. However what won't convince me is arguing for a one off exception to a guideline that's been in place for this long and on this many articles. As also I stated in the RFC, I'm so burned out on cleaning up after people who insert random junctions in the infobox that if I do vote to change the guideline I need to be convinced it's more workable, not less workable, or a one off special exemption. Otherwise, my vote will be to rid the infoboxes of the major junctions entirely. ] (]) 00:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:06, 7 July 2024
 | U.S. Roads Project‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Centralized discussion for the U.S. Roads WikiProject
Shortcut
Archives: Index, 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 |
.svg) | |
|
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. | |
 | WikiProject U.S. Roads was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on May 3, 2010. |
AARoads Wiki
Please join us over at the AARoads Wiki. We look forward to seeing you soon! Imzadi 1979 → 20:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I sure hope that this project isn't shutting down. It would be unfortunate for us to cave to the opinions of non-content contributors at an RfC who probably don't even know how to read a map. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've marked the page as per this. 20:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- I just want to state for the record that I intend to continue maintenance of Washington articles as well as those I brought up to GA status in other states. I'm going to be contributing to both projects, albeit with less detail for roads articles on here. SounderBruce 04:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- In reality there are two more alternative sites we can choose from - Justapedia and Encycla. The former is a Misplaced Pages-like site that forked all contents from here last year and has lenient notability requirements. 5.181.21.208 (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Failed GA
I recently quickfailed the GA nomination of Interstate 485 because of several outstanding issues that I think need to be dealt with before the article is in a state where it is close to meeting the GA criteria. I provided extensive comments on the review page, but I think in particular it fails 1, 2a, and (partially) 3. However, the nominator has challenged my action, and I'd appreciate if other road editors could provide feedback and let me know if they think I made the right decision or not. In addition, I think the GA review of Interstate 85 in North Carolina was done in haste, and may have some of the same issues as this article. I'd actually raised these issues before the review. Bneu2013 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just from the GA side as input was requested at WT:GAN, while it would have been good for Talk:Interstate 485/GA1 to more explicitly cite the GA criteria, I do not believe this is technically a quickfail as it did receive extensive comments. I would categorise it as a normal fail. CMD (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ok you're right, it wasn't technically a quickfail. I guess I should have cited the GA criteria, but I prefer to list individual issues when conducting GA reviews. Bneu2013 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Bneu2013: if you're doing a GA review, you really need to refer to the criteria. If a comment doesn't specifically impact the criteria, strictly speaking, it's an optional improvement that can't be used to deny a promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 00:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ok you're right, it wasn't technically a quickfail. I guess I should have cited the GA criteria, but I prefer to list individual issues when conducting GA reviews. Bneu2013 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The I-90 dispute
The RFC here left very unconvincing results and ended in no consensus, with no end in sight to the decades-long debate of I-90 junctions. I think a clear discussion of how to connect policies and guidelines is needed here, especially with WP:OWNership of that article. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how enforcing a guideline that has been in place for over a decade and used on hundreds of articles equates to ownership of a single article by a single person. I'll repeat what I said in the RFC. The point of the "10 junctions limit" is to keep the infobox at a manageable length so it doesn't crowd the body of the article. Maybe some of the longer road articles could support more than 10 and still keep the infobox from crowding out the article prose, I don't know. I think it would be a stronger argument to propose an alternative guideline and create sandbox copies of some o f our longer road articles with different infoboxes to demonstrate. I think that would be a more effective way to convince me. However what won't convince me is arguing for a one off exception to a guideline that's been in place for this long and on this many articles. As also I stated in the RFC, I'm so burned out on cleaning up after people who insert random junctions in the infobox that if I do vote to change the guideline I need to be convinced it's more workable, not less workable, or a one off special exemption. Otherwise, my vote will be to rid the infoboxes of the major junctions entirely. Dave (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)