Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vegaswikian (talk | contribs) at 00:10, 13 July 2008 (→Interstate 587: move reply to after comment it was in response to. If in error, feel free to revert). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WT:IH

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Bruce Woodbury Beltway

I'd think the article name for Interstate 215 (Nevada) 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? --Geopgeop (T) 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The beltway is complete! However it has not been fully upgraded from an expressway to a freeway. Vegaswikian 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. --TMF 20:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, renaming it would eliminate the need for two infoboxes. --TMF 20:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, I didn't see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clark_County_Route_215&action=history --Geopgeop (T) 14:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Las Vegas Beltway, since the media does not use the ceremonial name: --NE2 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. --MPD 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. --TMF 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:

1. Each project needs to remain aware of developments at WT:USRD 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.
2. If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
3. 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.
4. 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, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

More opinions needed for I-355 FAC

More comments and opinions would be useful for the Interstate 355 FAC nomination. 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. —Rob (talk) 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. -Airtuna08 (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SPS. --Holderca1 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. -Airtuna08 (talk) 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? --Holderca1 17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

AARoads Kickoff Page 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. -Airtuna08 (talk) 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. --Holderca1 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. -Airtuna08 (talk) 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?? --Holderca1 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. --NE2 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.-Airtuna08 (talk) 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. --Rschen7754 (T C) 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 (Richard C. Moeur comes to mind). —Rob (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No_original_research, 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 Rockland County Routes. 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. -Airtuna08 (talk) 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. :-) —Rob (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

AARoads: In the News, AARoads: Acknowledgements and Affliates, AARoads: Feedback -Airtuna08 (talk) 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. --TMF 08:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

AARoads is updated daily, those FHWA Route Finders are not. -Airtuna08 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And what's better? Having a citation needed marker next to the mileage on Interstate 95 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. -Airtuna08 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Mileage...Source: October 31, 2002 Interstate Route Log and Finders List - the same one that is available from the FHWA. --TMF 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? -Airtuna08 (talk) 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. —Rob (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See, this is the thing: are we going to go by Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules or Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Misplaced Pages:Sources? It seems to me that the usual way of applying WP:IAR is that when there is a debate as to whether a particular rule applies to a particular case or not, consensus (rather than interpretation of the wording of the rule) decides. As far as I understand, only WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:COPYRIGHT override WP:IAR. 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. Bwrs (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have no opinion of my own about whether aaroads.com is a reliable source or not. I think the fact that the name of the website mimics or may cause confusion with AAA may weigh somewhat against the reliability of this source. Bwrs (talk) 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: --NE2 05:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, 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 WP:ASSESS.

• 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 a rubric, 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 described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. 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. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message 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 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 587

Is currently redirected to a state route page. Those in NY will obviously feel NY 28 is a more meaningful road, but which route is more broadly notable? I know as an interstate geek I'm more interested in Interstate 359 in Alabama than California State Route 99 lets say. Interstates are much more notable than state routes. This NY State Route has its own page and I-587 does not? Even worse, New York State Route 962J. This is insanity!!! >>>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. If I had my way Interstate 580 (Nevada) would redirect to U.S. Route 395 in Nevada. Even if both articles were improved to GA status they would be redundant. Another example that does redirect is Interstate 305, although in this case I doubt I-305 will ever be signed. Dave (talk) 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. --NE2 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the reader want a detailed description at I-587 (or whatever it redirects to) rather than having to click to NY 28 to see it? --NE2 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. -- UWMSports (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Another article I can think of that is in this situation is Interstate 381. I know I'd like some sort of description at I-587. 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. --MPD 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. --NE2 06:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Aside: the circle reconstruction actually added an exit, but it's just for a park and ride and wouldn't belong in an exit list anyway. --NE2 06:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The reader would like to know about I-587. 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 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. --Airtuna08 (talk) 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. >>>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 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. -- UWMSports (talk) 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. -- UWMSports (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)