User talk:MPD01605/Archive2

Friday
22 November, 2024
20:32 EST


Home	Talk	Talk Archives	Sandbox Sandbox2 Sandbox3	New Pages	Roads (USRD Talk)	Road work	Commons (Talk)

WikiStress

Level

These are archives of past discussions. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I-74 exit list

My fear with the exit list is that it's so speculative at this point, it might not be useful. I'd prefer not to put it in the article until NCDOT formalizes it. I think an external link to the list is absolutely the way to approach it. Making the exit list on the talk page is another possibility. Then, if it crystalizes the way the speculation goes, it's very easy to move to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reformatted Interstate 77 in Virginia and pointed referenced WP:IH/ELG to show that there is consensus that it is the preferred formatting for the exit lists. I guess we'll just see what happens. —C.Fred (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 74 (east)

I am changing this redirect back to Interstate 74, since South Carolina is also building their piece. --NE2 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-5 Exit list help

I've seen the problem happen, so I know what's probably driving it. Finding where may be the challenge. I'll take a look, though. —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually fun. (Yes, I'm weird. :) ) I knew what happened is some rows had an extra column in them; I wrote a Perl program to scan the table and find them. It was exits 71, 710 and 786. You might want to look at Exit 71—I think that was a road and its destination across two columns initially, and I combined them onto one. If I did that wrong, sorry about that. The other two exits were just extra blank columns on the end, so that was real easy to fix. But, it's cleaned up now. Not a problem at all. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 74

I see from your edit summary when you reverted my changes that they were not "in line with standards". Could you direct me to the appropriate standards, so I don't make future mistakes? Also, you reverted changes I had made in the "External links" section, where I replaced US Postal codes with the full state name (in this case, NC with North Carolina). Am I correct that this was an oversight on your part, or is that replacement also not in line with standards? –RHolton ≡– 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I can understand your points about the use of state abbreviations to conserve space in the various boxes. Might I suggest, however, that traditional abbreviations would be better suited than postal abbreviations? The postal abbreviations were designed specifically for optical character recognition, not for human ease of use. The postal codes are particularly vexing for those who are not from the US. My personal first choice would still be to use fully spelled-out names, but... –RHolton ≡– 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject France

The above project has been proposed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#France, would be needing some willing helpers to merge and bring together the various active Wiki Projects related to France. Let me know if you have some suggetion or ideas for it. STTW (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a transport wikiproject worry

see my reply on the proposals page. Simply south 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Middle of I-95

Yeah, when I got mile 88 instead, I realized I had included the western spur in New Jersey. While we don't have the mileposts on the exit list for Virginia yet, generally the exit numbers are more or less accurate (no +1 necessary). On rare occasions there is in fact an Exit 0, other times the DOT just naturally corrects the exits so they're numbered according to the nearest milepost. Perhaps to minimize on OR-ness, it would be better to say simply Milepost 83 (no precision, and no exit reference), since as of now we don't know where Milepost 83 is. -- NORTH ^talk 00:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, near I-295 is good too. The difference between the length table and the infobox is probably because the state-by-state lengths are from a variety of sources, and the infobox length is a single figure probably from yet another separate source. I don't think it's an issue that needs to be of any concern. -- NORTH ^talk 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Department Template

Check out the Fire Department template page for my comments. --Daysleeper47 19:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edits the Squad page... check it out. It should be more clear now. --Daysleeper47 21:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, where do you volunteer? I'm a volunteer firefighter in Arlington. --Daysleeper47 21:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on my campaign to become an administrator

Hello MPD01605, I hope that you are having a happy holiay season. I have recently been nominated to become an administrator here on Wikipedia. I am asking that since I have worked with you in the past that you stop by my nomination page and consider entering a vote, hopefully in support of my becoming an administrator.

Please feel free to communicate with me on my Talk page at User talk:No1lakersfan if you have any questions or reservations. Best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season. Thanks, --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway shields

IIRC, Interstate shields are federal works and thus not subject to copyright. The issue with the shields for some of the turnpikes is that they may be owned by private parties and thus subject to copyright and/or trademark. I think if the png is lifted directly from the website, then we have a copyright issue. By contrast, if the design is recreated from specifications, then it should be clear of copyright--the use of the image would then be subject to trademark. This has come up with college logos, except there the copyright issue is in play, since they're lifted from various college-licensed websites, so they are fair use.

So my thought is that if the shield came off, say, the Pennsylvania Turnpike website and is subject to copyright, it can be used under fair use on the Turnpike's article, possibly on the routes like I-76 that comprise/multiplex with the Turnpike, but not on articles for intersecting roads. If the shield is not subject to copyright--even if it is subject to trademark--then it's free for use anywhere on the Wikipedia (since we aren't opening a competing freeway). If it's recreated, then the creator can release it to public domain or under GFDL, and it's fair game in any relevant Wikipedia article. IMHO. —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Turnpike

About the edit to the article Pennsylvania Turnpike, it isn't okay to leave out I-95 from the infobox. Although it will be on the mainline in the future, it is still best to leave the "future" plate on I-95 until construction is finished. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-95 auxilary routes

If you're going to remove links to the old/defunct/never-built auxilary routes, etc., I think you should first create a new article that talks about all of them -- otherwise there's no central place where they're all listed. Jkatzen 06:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing

Take a look at hearing (sense) if you get a chance; see if you agree with my changes. Λυδαcιτγ 06:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MNroutebox

Oops. Thanks for catching. I've had a habit of breaking that rule that I need to bust out of :-D • master_son^{Lets talk} 05:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I95

Better! I will try to pitch in a bit too. Thanks for your response.Kaisershatner 18:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]