Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 09:02, 18 April 2008 (CAT:SHORTFIX {{Shortcut|WT:IH}}). 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.

The junction list in the infobox is still for the most-significant junctions, right?

Recently, I've noticed changes made to a couple of articles' infobox junction lists. As examples:

• In I-85, I-20 and I-75 were combined to imply the were multiplexed when they intersect in Atlanta. At one point, the I-40 interchange was omitted in favor of US 70! (Diff: )
• In I-35, major interstate I-90 was replaced with minor interstate I-94, because the I-94 interchanges are in Minneapolis and St. Paul, whereas I-90 is in Albert Lea. (Diffs: and )

The problem is, this completely goes against the description of the infobox here, which states "Only major junctions go into the Interstate routebox." Not junctions in major cities, but major junctions. I don't see any discussion to indicate this is being reconsidered, and as I said, the project page says to list junctions. I say keep it that way. Is there anybody who favors turning the junction list in the infobox into a list of arbirtrarily-selected junctions in major cities? —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, major junctions are just that, we have a separate place for major cities. --Holderca1 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is one of the first things that people see when they view the article. Showing that I-35 passes through MSP is a lot more important than showing that it intersects every I-x0. --NE2 06:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the list of control cities are for. I'd say in this case that I-90 should be listed over I-94 (I-90 being the longest interstate in the nation). No reason that we can't list both as a compromise if it comes to that. No need to edit war. —Scott5114↗ 08:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So then why did you remove I-30? It intersects I-35 in DFW. --Holderca1 13:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because I-30 isn't a major freeway ? -- KelleyCook 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It's more so than I-94. --Holderca1 15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to argue that a 360 mile spur from Ft. Worth to Little Rock with minimal traffic outside the Dallas metroplex is more major than a 1600 mile freeway that goes through four cities large enough to have major league baseball teams? ... And before you answer with the stock "It's the number, stupid!", please cite a definitive source, preferably on either the FHWA or AASHTO's site that gives higher status to Interstates that end in 0 or 5. They classify them into two groups, primary and auxiliary. -- KelleyCook 17:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, it's not a spur, it would have a one in front of it. Yes, that is my argument, if there weren't other numbers available, than you would have a point, but the interstate isn't numbered 28, 32, 34, 36, 38... Also, I didn't realize we only listed cities that have a major league baseball team. Anyway, that isn't the point, the point above was we were listing junctions with other interstates in major cities, and I think DFW qualifies. So even if it was I-32 in Dallas, it should be listed according to the above argument. --Holderca1 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of scope

There are some numbers that have not officially existed, but still appear in documents. The ways in which this can happen are:

1. The state and AASHTO went through several rounds of figuring out what number to use. One example is I-495 in Pennsylvania, which became I-480 in 1958 and I-476 in 1964. However, even though I-480 was never signed, since none of the road has been built, the number was final until the renumbering of I-80S to I-76.
2. A renumbering was approved but never carried out, for instance I-795 in Virginia.
3. A number was suggested by a local government, but never used by the state DOT.

This would not apply to numbers that have:

1. Appeared in official FHWA logs.
2. Appeared on official state maps.
3. Been signed. (Interstate 695 (New York))
4. Been used as the official designation in planning studies. (?)
5. Been used as a common name in news articles. (Interstate 605 (Washington))

I suggest that the ones that have not existed not be included in navigational boxes like template:I-95 aux and not be categorized in Category:former and future Interstate Highways or anywhere else. They can be mentioned in the article about the current designation, but not in other articles such as the one about the "parent", unless it otherwise makes sense (such as explaining why a number was skipped).

Does this sound good? Are more examples needed? --NE2 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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)