User talk:Atanamir/Archive2

1964 state highway renumbering

It was a renumbering of not only the State Routes but also U.S. Routes and Interstates, all of which are state highways. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California uses "sign route" too sometimes, though it seems to have been used more before the renumbering, when there were two systems. [1] calls them all "State Route X". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on - I'll look in a bit. But I seem to remember seeing U.S. Routes and Interstates - for instance PSH 1 (I think) is listed as 5 and 99. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The current state highway numbering system was approved by the 1963 session of the state legislature and first posted in January 1964. The older primary and secondary state highway numbers remained as the official or legislative numbers until the 1970 session of the legislature made the newer posted numbers the official numbers. From 1964 to 1970 the posted route numbers were referred to as sign route numbers. Since 1970 they have been called state route numbers." --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten List of Washington State Routes with a full history of the numbering. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I seem to have started a war in WA

And I haven't even done any page moves. See [2] and Talk:List of Washington State Routes#Massive change to list. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically because this is the same thing that happened at California before the massive page moves began. Also if you see my talk page, SPUI says himself that he will start moving pages soon. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renumberings

I was thinking of doing something like that. There certainly wasn't a renumbering everywhere in 1964 though:

1964 state highway renumbering (California)
1945 Florida State Road renumbering
Nevada had one around 1976
1927 New Jersey state highway renumbering
1953 New Jersey state highway renumbering
New Mexico had one in 1989 (?)
1964 state highway renumbering (Washington) (they also had one in 1923 and 1937)

Maybe it would be better just to make a category for highway renumberings? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just plop {{d}} on it. Use db|foo to give a reason. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. What do you think about a template at the bottom, like on Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956? It seems that this has the possibility to be rather big - I'd estimate half the states did a renumbering at some point. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thinking about it a bit more, the series box seems like a decent idea. I'll play with it a bit. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Route infobox

Please comment, if you wish to, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington State Highways#Shrunken infobox. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

You are aware that SPUI is masss moving pages without consensus and is upsetting many people? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that the mass page moves are blockable as they cause disruption? (Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive84) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the reason that people are upset is because SPUI does not have consensus to do this. People are opposing him and SPUI keeps plowing on, regardless of the opposition. That is not civility. And the WP:ANI thing was clear- any moves will be blocked. I'm giving you grace here, but still... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If SPUI had the consensus to do all this then it would be okay. But he does not here. That;s why we're upset. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just "a few holdouts." It's the majority of WP:CASH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was with the naming conventions too. But the wars are a mess- it's not just CA. It's WA, NY, DE, CT, and now CO too that is erupting into wars. Therefore to prevent any more warring (and try to keep this thing under control) we have to do blocks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, you're not supposed to move any state highway article until we have this settled. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong - you're supposedly not supposed to move California, because that has been subject to move wars. But your moves in Colorado were proper. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct. Any mass moves of state highway pages. Because then people will move them back. And forth. And back. Get the idea? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case you'd be in the wrong, for moving them back. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, thanks. If SPUI does manage to generate consensus, then the pages can be moved back. But not before he does, though. That's the reasoning behind this. SPUI needs consensus first, then he can do the massive moves- and we would be happy to help. But if the consensus goes against him, then he can't. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can't have a meaningless poll if SPUI has decided that he will disregard the results and plow through. That's what has happened. If he stops his moves and other controversial decisions then we can shut down the RFC and go back to mediation or even shut that down too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roadgeek font

[3] --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it and responded here. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 03:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The problem with showing every state highway is that every time one is added, deleted or changed, you have to update every map. I'd personally go for something much more minimal, like the Washington maps, and possibly stick it in the infobox. A more detailed map zoomed in on just SH 1, showing its ends and junctions, could possibly go later in the article. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 07:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. You could put in I-25, I-70 and I-76 - those aren't going to change. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 07:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd get rid of the county lines - something like Image:Map-WA-7.svg. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 19:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just general sluggishness due to high load. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 19:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:CA-74.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:CA-74.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If you created it yourself you could replace the {{PD}} tag with {{PD-self}}.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. -- Paddu 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VA Route NC's

Nah, I think we're going to stick with Virginia State Highway XX. Virginia (I'm not sure about Colorado) also has secondary routes, and we're working on that NC right now. But it pictures and such, it's written as "Route" mainly for simplicity and because it's understood (or I hope so, otherwise we'll have to go back and fix things). Although I'm seeing links to all sorts of different names, and right now I'm trying to get a WikiPoject Virginia Highways up so that we can have set rules and standardise everything and so on. Like any highway project, there are different names, but we actually figured out something that we (all four of us right now) can agree on. But thank you for the offer. --MPD01605 15:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged six Colorado route icons for speedy deletion with the reason "moved to Commons under same name". However, "moved to Commons under same name" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I am removing the tags. You should use the tag {{NCT}} instead. If you created an image and no longer consider it to be useful, remove it from all articles and put {{db-author}} on the description page. Thanks! Stifle 18:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Hmmm... it would probably be better to add a column to the junction list for lat/long and use {{coor d}} to link to maps. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 06:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd still have the whole route, just not all as one link. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 06:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana

Please wait until we have discussed before moving pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but no parenthetics please until we've concluded the WP:NC/NH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could do it, of course to the correct name with parens. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 03:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VA Shields

Thanks for starting to make those, I really appreciate it. The skinny font is the standard one. The only recommendations I have are that you increase the font size a little bit, bring the number down a bit, and the shape of the shield seems a little off, but maybe that's just me. Here would be a good example, and here and here might be better. And the black border is good, because the corners are actually rounded, I just couldn't do it in Word/Paint. Any other questions/examples, go ahead and ask. I've got plenty. Otherwise, looks good! Thanks again! --MPD01605 (Talk | contribs) 22:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks good. I got a second opinion on it, and we both think it looks fine. The shape just seemed off ot me at first, but no it's fine. When(if) you place these in the Commons, could you put them under Category:Virginia road signs ? The titling of Virginia X works fine for me. My second opinion says that the number could be bigger, but the position is fine, and I go by that if the number 88 can fit in nicely without changing the font size, it's good. But I think it's good as it is, in fact I'm using it on VA 7 right now. I look forward to more coming out!

Also, could you give me a run through on how to make .svg images, specifically these? I can't seem to get the hang of it, and the websites don't help. It'd be much appreciated. Thanks, ----MPD01605 (Talk | contribs) 02:28, 10 April 2006 (EDT) | 23:28, 9 April 2006 (MDT)

Alaska shields

Sorry - I didn't realize you had made these; I needed something to do during the outage, and figured no one would have done Alaska yet. I believe mine are slightly more accurate to the specs, so I'm replacing them. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used that same spec - our shields turned out very similar. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: edit conflict

Yeah, I had been planning to save before you moved the page, and I almost overwrote the redirect at the old title by accident. — Apr. 10, '06 [05:39] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

State highways

I'd redirect them to state highway, with possibly a prominent link to List of numbered highways in the United States or List of highway shields in the United States up top. (It might make sense to merge those two pages, come to think of it.) --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 23:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

AARoads, Caltrans site... to name a few. Also could you please name any sources that are using the exact phrase "State Route 23 (California)"? With parentheses? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[4] All pages that this links to are titled "California State Route 23 (Eastbound)" for example. And this is not disambiguation here. There is only one California State Route 23. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see that? I just made up 23. And I see the "California State Route 87 (Eastbound)" header in my browser. Also some of the hits you mentioned for "State Route" are stuff like

Transportation Concept Report State Route January 2002 California Department Of Transportation District 02 89 Clio Graeagle Greenville N PLUMAS P LUMAS SHASTA S...

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one part of the Caltrans site, likely all written by one person, that uses "California State Route X". Everything else uses "State Route X". Rschen7754 is sitll trying to confuse the issue by looking for instances of "State Route X (California)", which means he still does not understand disambiguation. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um no, I do understand disambiguation. It doesn't work for highways though. We can't redo the system just so you can use the pipe trick. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement above says that you don't understand disambiguation. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 01:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internationally, what are these routes known as? Not as "State Route 56", that's for sure. How does that go with common names? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is known as "State Route 56" internationally. [5] "Lessons from America – the San Diego HOT lane" - "The HOT lanes currently run for eight miles in the median of Interstate 15 between State Route 56 and State Route 56 to the north of San Diego, California, and are reversible." Owned yet? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 02:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no since that's stuff after the main noun (in fact one is a prep phrase). Here it's before the noun and limits it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utah shield

I've posted a bunch of photos on Talk:List of Utah State Routes. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 01:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California

We knew that - Caltrans sometimes does use "Route X". But they also use "State Route X" or "SR X". --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 06:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming shield

I've moved your Wyoming 789 shield to the Commons as Image:WY-789.svg and listed the local version for deletion. --phh (^t/_c) 19:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I was planning to do that once i got around to making all the wyoming shields. Any particular reason for the naming convention WY-789? I've been making everything as [state name] [route number].svg. CA followed this model, so i've adopted it as well. So far, Colorado, CA, North Dakota,Rhode Island, and Virginia follow this model. atanamir 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI has made a more descriptive model [state_name] [route_number] Shield.svg. That's being used at Utah and Florida as far as I can tell. atanamir 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I named it to be compatible with the WY-200 shield I'd created for an article I'm in the process of writing, which itself I'd named following the naming convention someone else had developed for the Washington shields that I'd previously redone in SVG. I generally don't care for file names with spaces in them, and verbose file names are harder to work with, so I prefer the shorter standard. But I'm not overly attached to any convention. --phh (^t/_c) 12:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]