Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SPUI (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 25 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

By the way, I have decided... I will be withdrawing for a while from Misplaced Pages on weekdays. Basically, this is taking too much of my time. I can't do my homework or more important things. However, I will check my watchlist daily. (Things really get messy when I take a break, with stubs especially. It gets really hard to catch up. So I can't leave even temporarily.)

Archives
March 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 The beginning of the move wars April 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – Dec 2024

Re: Edit to USRD

Uh what?Mitchazenia 21:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed for privacy reasonsMitchazenia 21:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Where, i dont see anything,link it please.Mitchazenia 21:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed for privacy reasonsMitchazenia 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rschen-It doesnt matter, its not like i fall under that situation.Mitchazenia 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Stub categories

Any chance of running these past WP:WSS/P prior to creation, as per WP:STUB? Alai 03:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Those should really still be proposed, even so, since some of those existing templates are deliberately that way, and would be significantly undersized as separate categories, and there's also the issue of what name the category should have. (Obviously that's not the case with the WI roads, at least IMO, having just proposed it myself.) Equally, some of those templates are likewise unproposed, perhaps by people unfamiliar with the stub guidelines (e.g. in the case of {{Rhode Island-State-Highway-stub}}. The US-roads aren't really in such bad shapes, though obviously they need to be "monitored" for rashes of new articles that could be fed into existing or future viable stub types. Alai 03:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing of poll

Well, yes, we are essentially waiting for one of the admins to close the poll. Just strike out votes made after the official closing of poll. --physicq210 00:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing state highway discussion

I contacted an admin who will make sure the discussion is closed and protected. The participating admin have been notified, and I let them know they have until 23:59 UTC on September 4 to make their vote. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not able to get a colored background for the closed voting, but I had it protected so that only admin users are able to edit the discussion and voting sections. I will try to see if I can get somebody to put a colored background in those areas. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone could have seen this coming. No matter what the outcome, if it isn't in SPUI's favour, he marks it as "rejected" and puts up a phony reason. He's already vandalised the voting page in an attempt to sway the minds of the admins. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention poll

Is this good for you? Teke 02:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• How long is the admin discussion supposed to be before complete closure? Teke 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've seen. I'm giving it one more day, then I'll post at AN for someone else to formalize closure, to cover all the bases. Teke 02:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Part 2

How does one "transclude?" Don't know how to do that, and I'd like to in regards to WP:OHSH. Homefryes •_Do 18:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I finally figured it out (couldn't concentrate on what you were explaining to do while I was at work yesterday). Let me know if I set up Ohio correctly. Homefryes •_Do 13:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I jump the gun with my comment? I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that there would be discussion and voting. Should I remove my comment for now and repost after the voting opens? Homefryes •_Do 17:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks. Homefryes •_Do 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your work and patience at the state route naming conventions poll, in helping bring a general consensus to this long-standing debate even at the risk of one vocal opponent to the entire process. Your work on various transport related pages is of high quality and improves the quality of the encylopedia. Kudos and thank you! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Support above provided barnstar. Good work, you have far more patience than I. -Ravedave 05:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

heh

fair enough. out of curiosity, what's the purpose of the separate administrator sections? — Dan | talk 21:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:State route naming conventions poll

Hey, someone pointed out to me that you protected this page. I see your name all throughout the history of the page. You should get another admin to do this for you when you're that involved with a page, or else it appears a conflict of interest; and we're trying to get away from that. Thanks! Bastique▼ _voir 21:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Part 2 Transcluding

I am transcluding I just haven't gotten to it yet. Stratosphere 19:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• there I think I got it taken care of Stratosphere 19:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Rschen7754! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe's talk 11:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:CRWP

What poll are you talking about? I have been very busy lately. Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:State route naming conventions poll/Part2

If this is being done in classic Albanian democratic fashion (all citizens must vote for the only choice provided) then why bother voting. If you take a gander at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes/Completion list, we have article created for every exisiting state highway in New jersey, with redirects from virtually every other meaningful alternative. The only articles that don't exists (or have redirects) are a limited number of proposed and defunct roadways. There seem to be about as many people working on New Jersey articles as participated in the original poll, yet other than SPUI (for whatever he's worth representing our state), I didn't see any other New Jersey participation in the process. A consensus is inly worth it's name if it encompasses a sufficiently broad cross-section of participants, and that just does not seem to be the case as far as the participants in WP:NJSCR are concerned, including myself. Alansohn 02:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You indicated that the New Jersey articles were to be changed "<New Jersey> Route xx - Converting current convention to P1." On what authority? When was there an invitation to participate in this process, as you had indicated? Why is an arbitrary process being shoved down the throats of a longstanding WikiProject, founded almost a year ago, that has accomplished together what is likely the most thorough set of road articles of any state in the country? Alansohn 00:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

An invitation is one thing. A statement that this poll will decide how every single road article in the United States will be named is another. A review of the discussion that did take place showed much browbeating and dictator-style tactics, that even managed to cow SPUI into submission. There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with trying to shove a decision down the throat of every Misplaced Pages user updating road articles nationwide, when there was no explanation up front as to the goals, missions and reprecussions of the one-sided process that transpired. Alansohn 00:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

California routebox

No I am not aware of this. Please enlighten me about this issue. Thanks! --physicq210 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, can't we just have all the state highway articles use the same infobox? --physicq210 04:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, just bring the junctions thing up when the infobox thing crops up. --physicq210 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The compromise

Hopefully, this'll hold so that there won't be a next time when it comes to road name debating. In any case, I'm back (needed a couple of days away to clear my head and enjoy the Labor Day holiday), hopefully for the long run. --TMF 16:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

North Carolina Highways Naming Convention

This has finally come to an end. All we need now from the WP:NCSH project members is a vote on which convention we should use at the National State Route Naming Convention Poll. If you feel you have enough knowledge in the area, please go to Misplaced Pages:State route naming conventions poll#North Carolina and cast your vote. --TinMan 17:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously mate

Why foment conflict where none need exist? If nobody was contesting the names of NJSR pages (and apparently nobody was), why would you feel the need to create an issue over it? Just let them be. You're making this harder than it has to be by insisting on "foolish consistency" on non-contentious pages. By trying to force the issue, you're creating more enemies and stimulating more opposition. If there's existing naming conventions chosen by state WikiProjects which have not been objected to, I'd recommend they be left alone. Otherwise this is just going to snowball. FCYTravis 04:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note

Please note at that I had not placed the discussion for the latter two at the right place. KY X and Kentucky State Primary/Secondary/Supplemental Road X was meant only for discussion for within the body of the text. I withdrew both from voting to remove any further confusion, and added an option for Kentucky State Route X. Sorry about that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:SRNC

Can I vote only for New Jersey or can I vote for all 50 states? Who is eleigible to vote within a particular state? Alansohn 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't voters have a genuine participatory connection on the state's road articles? Dare I ask what your connection is to New Jersey's roads? For that matter, I haven't seen any edits from User:Myselfalso to NJ roads. I disagree entirely with User:Northenglish regarding the existence of controversy in New Jersey, but I have a great deal of respect for the fact that he has actively participated in WP:NJSCR, and that his vote has meaningful value as such. Alansohn 03:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have expressed, I already have genuine concerns about the process that led up to the consensus that created the proposals in question. But doesn't allowing anyone to vote in any state, even if they have never participated in editing the state's highway articles or have some other demonstrable connection to that state, undermine whatever remaining shred of validity this voting might have? Why stop at restricting the vote to those with 100 edits to anything on Misplaced Pages, which could consist of fixing typos or editing Pokemon articles, or anything else irrelevant to this already controversial process. Why not restrict the vote to those with 100 edits in that state or 100 edits to state highways in that state? Why not have voters state describe their justification for granting themselves a vote in a given state? I may have well over 1,000 total NJ road edits (double or triple that if I include other articles -- municipalities, bridges, interstates and U.S. Routes -- where edits were made to references to NJ roads). Why should my one vote be outweighed by any other two people who've contributed nothing to New Jersey and its road articles? If we're really trying to foster a peception of meaningful consensus, having non-participants vote just adds to the overall peception of problems with the process. Any objections to passing this on to WT:SRNC for discussion by the group? Alansohn 05:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank god for the Internet, for those who might not be in the loop about a particular state and being able to find, somehow, information on the roads there. Not everyone voting is as hapless as you make them sound. -- Stratosphere 06:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That list you put on WT:SRNC

Is that supposed to be only states that are mostly P2, or just any state that has a mixture of conventions? -- NORTH 06:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject map

Stratosphere's got it already. It's fairly simple to do; just open the image up in Inkscape, click a state, click the red swatch at the bottom of the screen, then save and upload. —Scott5114↗ 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your block of Vrrayman1990

This user is a sockpuppet of Randallrobinstine, a long time sockpuppeter with many puppets. I would recommend an indef block (as a sockpuppet) instead of the 3 hours, but that's just me. —Whomp _(myedits) 02:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment

How is Interstate 244 not an article? —Scott5114↗ 18:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Assessment

I think it would be better off to have each state split off. Texas alone will eventually have over 3,000 articles, will be a pain in the ass to have to sift through every other states articles to find the ones I need. The bot doesn't seem to have a problem with it now when it counts the assessments. --Holderca1 04:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the bot simply didn't look in/count the articles in the subcat. I have reverted the Texas articles back. Is there a way to get the bot to count those in subcats? I know bots have no problem with tagging articles in subcats with WP templates. I think it will be a lot easier on those in the respective state WPs to be able to go their specific folder rather than trying to find articles from every project. Any thoughts on a solution? --Holderca1 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Sorry if I interfered with your editing. Next time, please put {{inuse}} or {{inuse-section}} on the page before editing to reduce such edit conflicts. Again, I apologize for my confusion. --physicq210 23:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I said prior to Part II voting that we already agreed at WT:NCSH (now archived info) that "NC x" would be used as the common name for linking and article text. If you look at Part II under North Carolina, you can see at the top that I stated that. As for South Carolina, I don't think it was voted on, so reverting that is fine. This poll was for the article titles anyway and not for text words I believe. I don't think that that was stated anywhere and was for Part III. Besides, I asked twice how to use brackets to get "NC x" in the voting option, but nobody said anything. Reguardless, "North Carolina x" was not chosen under any poll or any concensus, so I really don't know why that's listed under the style guide. --TinMan 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you read the above comment yet, but they were listed on Part II. --TinMan 23:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just read your response. No worries. --TinMan 23:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the convention. My only reservation is that the proposal seems incomplete, but in a subtle way that as of now I cannot describe. --physicq210 04:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Potentially problematic edit to Interstate 335 (Minnesota)

I know I shouldn't be editing highway articles, but I found the article Interstate 335 (Minnesota) and I noticed a few things that needed to be corrected on it. Please review my change and let me know if there is anything wrong with it. If so, please revert it as soon as necessary. Again, I know it's bad form for me to edit highway articles, but "Minneapolis" was misspelled. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Exit list guide

Hello, Rschen7754. Since you have commented on the design of exit lists in the past, you may be interested in contributing to the newly-formed exit list guide. Please give your input regarding the page as soon as possible.

Regards, TMF 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota

Are you aware that Jonathunder changed your exemption, and is now trying to change Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways) to match? --SPUI (T - C) 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)