User talk:Moabdave/Archive 3

SR-94

Did you want to upload that picture? --Admrboltz (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I can take a hint. Image:Thompson Springs.jpg. Actually your timing is perfect. I'm unwinding from a very busy week. Dave (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I have your page watchlisted, don't need a {{tb}} ping :p --Admrboltz (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

List of state highways in Utah

No problem at all. You'd already done most of the work. I just kinda jumped in on the end of it. Now all that's left is to populate all those empty cells... DeFaultRyan (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

NY Route 73 ACR

I fixed your last comment days ago - are you officially a support now?Mitch32^(UP) 23:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Flexible-fuel vehicle

Hi there. I just finished making all the fixes you suggested but one. Regarding the email authorizing the release of the pic, I rather try to save time, so I propose emailing it to you via Wiki (user), so you can check it to decide if it is good enough, instead of uploading it directly to WCommons now? So, if it necessary to ask the authors again I will, but in this way I can be sure the uploaded email will be accepted (this is the only pic I have ever uploaded asking for the author's release, so I am not very familiar with the procedure). What do you think? --Mariordo (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well Done. Aside from the image licensing issue, this definitely meets the Good Article criteria. I never received any email from you, did you send it? Just forward the email granting permission you received to the email address discussed on page Commons:Commons:OTRS, it doesn't take that long, an administrator on Commons will verify and reply with the URL. For a sample image, that has such a permission email archived on OTRS, see Image:OldSR269viaduct.jpg. Another easy solution is to simply comment out the image, until the permissions are resolved. One way or the other this is easy to fix. Again good job, I will promote the article as soon as this is resolved.Dave (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't send the email to you, I was just asking. Thanks for the tips. I will do it later today. If by Friday the permission is not OKed then I will deleted temporarily the image from the article until resolved.--Mariordo (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I had to comment out the pic. See my explanation in the GA Talk page. Thank you very much, I learned a lot with your revision.--Mariordo (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

6/395 gantry near Inyokern

hello Dave,

was wondering where that US-6 and US-395 pair were located... I'd love to see them for myself! Please email me - thank you!

Jake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.164.216 (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Main page featured article

Thank you for pointing out to me that Ceres had been submitted for a later date - I had previously looked on its talk page but found no mention of the submission there.

I would have appreciated the note without, however, your suggestions that I had not followed the rules; placing items on the 60-day list is only mentioned as being 'helpful', not required, and I had indeed replaced the former article correctly. The summary chart states that it is updated by the editors who follow the page, so I did not update that. Iridia (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

My intent was only to point out that there was the potential for two dwarf planets up for nomination at the same time. I was not dinging you or the nomination. I would be happy if either one of the two dwarf planets made it on the front page. My apologies if that came off wrong. Just between you and me, I think any article that's not pop-culture related should get a point on that scale, and any nomination related to video games, pop music and Family guy episodes should get a -1 =-) Dave (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

PS If you want to replace your nomination, I would support that. I think a dwarf planet is a lot closer to core subject than most other nominations that claim it. =-)

Thanks - I was probably a bit sensitive to it since I hadn't tried putting anything on the front page before, and I don't like deleting other people's work at the best of times :S I'll put up another nomination after Ceres has had its chance, as some of the other main contributors on Haumea also worked on Ceres and the Dwarf planet topic as a whole. Thanks for the offer of support! :) Iridia (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I must say

The main page is looking mighty fine today CL — 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now is the tough part. The vandalism revert duty. Dave (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I have 3 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on I-70 in Utah being on the Main Page

Good work on I-70 in Utah, good to see some of your work featured on the main page. Just about clogged my watchlist, but it was worth it to see the article hit the big time! --Glennfcowan (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Dave (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

US 395 research

It's a bit messy and has some SR 78 and 274 and I-5 stuff mixed in, but here it is: User:Rschen7754/Research/121308. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Response

I just followed what was on the junction list for U.S. Route 50 in Maryland. And for the italics, I'd only italicize text when it says "See X Freeway" or something like that. But I guess it wouldn't help to link to "California" for US 395 if the reader reached 3/4ths of the way down into the article. Although, I'd still think it's better to keep the bold, as US 395 enters Nevada, and the junctions in Nevada aren't listed in the California article. --Mgillfr (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that US-50 had two sections in Maryland until I saw that, good find. However, I definitely would not use that article as a guide. That article has serious problems, hurts my eyes just to look at the page. Seriously, it has so much bolded crap, its hard to read. I'm seriously tempted go on a rampage deleting crap on that page, but I don't want to incite a riot so I wont.

But, back to how to handle, US 395 in CA, I-22 in TN, now US 50 in MD, and whatever other highways have multiple segments in one state, I like the wording you proposed. My beef is what good does it do to link to the state name. It should link to the highway article in that state. The next question is bold verses italics. Checking the wikipedia guidelines in the subject MOS:BOLD, it definitely should not be bolded, as per the guideline, only table headers should be bolded. This is not a table header. However, it doesn't appear to be one of the cases for italicized text too. So maybe just plain text? Dave (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just plain text. But I'd like to see you put it in action so I know what you mean exactly. Try implementing your proposals to US 395 (CA) and see if you think it will work. --Mgillfr (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid you were going to say that =-). That means I have to fix the other stuff I find too =-) OK I'll give it a stab. the more I think about it, we do need to stick with your wording "see" is one of those words you shouldn't use on a web page. The "see page x" is already implied with a link, so it's a redundant word. Give me a few minutes to play with it.Dave (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the junction table! Though, I do have a couple of questions ...

• How come you removed some alternate names? (i.e. I-15 (Mojave Freeway) -> I-15) Are they supposed to be better off without them?
• Well, the US 395 Bus. shields look cool. :) But are you sure that US 395 Business is signed? Do you have any photos?

--Mgillfr (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

US-395 Business is signed, [1][2]. In true Caltrans fashion (motto: more sign errors than the other 49 states combined). To be honest I just standardized on using the Jct template, and it was the coding of the jct template that put the signs in. I was pleasantly surprised to see what they look like.

The next question is the tough one. Regardless, the page Interstate 15 in California should mention somewhere, that this freeway has been designated the Mojave Freeway by the California state legislature. The question is, should it just be mentioned in text, or in bold as an alternate title, and as a named freeway in the exit list.

There is no hard set rule, but the idea is to make the article useful but simple. For example, the Hollywood Freeway is signed as such (although not consistently) and does appear on maps with both the number US-101 and the name Hollywood Freeway. IMO it would be appropriate to use both the number and name in an exit list and in the article title. As when someone is giving directions, or a radio station is reporting traffic, or a commercial for a used car lot, could mention this road as either US 101 or Hollywood Freeway. However, No map or sign that I've seen lists the words "Mojave Freeway" next to I-15, including the 2 atlases I was using as sources for the exit list. I've never heard a car dealer advertise "take the Mojave freeway north" nor heard a traffic reporter use that name. So IMO, why create the expectation for someone that they are looking for a sign that says "Mojave Freeway", when in reality, it pretty much is a legislative designation with no use in the field. In the case of some of the county routes, I don't know if they are signed by name or number (Nine Mile Canyon road is signed by name, that one I know) so on most I left both just in case.

With that said, there's plenty of Grey area. Case in point, as you probably have seen, I'm working on re-writing California State Route 14, in that case, yes, there are signs that say "Antelope Valley Freeway",but only a couple, and it's not a common name. In that case the number is much more commonly used. However, it is at least signed. Currently I've got Antelope Valley Freeway in bold in the lead of the article. I'm still debating if that's right. When I get back to it, I probably will un-bold and take Aerospace Highway out of the lead, as that name is almost unheard of outside the roadgeek community. Dave (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm starting to get a grasp on whether alternate names should be listed. I think they should be listed only when everybody knows the name (i.e. I-405 - the San Diego Freeway), but if it's a namg like Aerospace Highway or Mojave Freeway (which is really labeled only on some maps) then I guess we leave it out since not many people know anything about it.

For Nine Mile Canyon Road, I don't think CR J41 is signed. I don't see any photos depicting the county route shield from Floodgap Roadgap. If you aren't sure that CR J41 is signed, you could try using Google Street View if you haven't tried it already.

Just for the record, I wouldn't call our community a "roadgeek". :S The word itself sounds so nerdy. I would say that we have passion for roads, however. :) --Mgillfr (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Highway

Hi. I read what you added to Sierra Highway. I live in the AV and found it very interesting. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you.! Ironically my goal was just to get U.S. Route 395 in California and California State Route 14 to GA status, but while doing the research stumbled onto that content. I decided I had to put it somewhere.Dave (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sierra Highway

The article Sierra Highway you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Sierra Highway for things needed to be addressed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dave, thanks for nominating me to be the USRD featured editor for January. I had no idea anybody was paying attention to the Nevada's state route articles, and the fact that I've been slowly working on improving the status of NVSR. Someday, when I have a decent amount of time to devote to some serious research on articles, I may just try to get one to GA (grad school kinda gets in the way of that right now). Thanks again! --Ljthefro (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the USRD-CRWP Cup

Hello, Davemeistermoab, and welcome to the USRD-CRWP Cup. This is just a reminder that the contest will start at 00:00 UTC on Saturday (about 4 PM Pacific and about 7 PM Eastern on Friday). Nominations must be made after that time to count for the contest.

Currently, there is only one pool for contestants. Please feel free to invite any Wikipedia user to join. We need a few more users to get another pool.

It is unknown when the first round will end; however, it will last at least 3 weeks.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sierra Highway

On January 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sierra Highway, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Time Mag

Done. Thank you,Dave! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

KAL 007

Thanks very much for your help with this article. I expect this one will make GA next time round, once the outstanding issues are resolved. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Utah State Route 7--Southern Corridor near St. George (Future)

Hi there, I'm new to Wikipedia and am trying to put in info on the under-construction Southern Corridor near St. George, Utah. I have been in contact with Kevin Kitchen of UDOT's Region 4, and he emailed me with the announcement of the Southern Corridor's number, 7. I have attached an email of his announcement.

Re: Southern Corridor's Number ‏
Sent: Wed 1/14/09 4:53 PM

(Floyd), And the lucky number is. . . SR-7. Just found out today.

Kevin Kitchen
Public Involvement Manager
UDOT Region Four

I will admit that the Southern Corridor's site hasn't been updated yet, but I do believe that they are building it, along with the new St. George Airport. If you do have any questions, just email Kevin.

Bolding on US 395

Okay, I understand you don't like seeing things bolded. However, your edit to U.S. Route 395 in California messed up the list on a few things: (which was why I undid your revision)

• The edit created an extra column to the right of the "Notes" column, which is obviously not needed.
• Adding "Begin/End Freeway" in the Notes column is not factually correct; the south and north ends of the freeway segment is to the south and north of the SR 70 junction, not at the junction.
• While I understand you're trying to follow WP:MOS, sometimes rules are meant to be ignored. All the WP:CASH articles use the bolded lines to note freeway termini, along with bridges, tunnels, etc. Please don't make US 395 inconsistent with the rest of the WP:CASH articles unless you are willing to unbold stuff like this on all the WP:CASH articles.

I'm a junction list person, so I tend to be a little nit-picky about the style of junction lists. (By nit-picky, I mean trying to tidy up the list, see U.S. Route 1 in Florida's junction list; I'm working on that one.) If you would like to discuss your ideas, please let me know and we'll see what can we agree on. Thanks for reading this, and sorry for any inconvenience caused. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That I know of, only two articles, Interstate 15 in Arizona and Interstate 70 in Utah, are freeway articles that have passed a Featured Article Review. One thing those two FA have in common is no bold text in the exit list. There is WAY TO MUCH bold text in most un-reviewed wikipedia articles. As most articles get reviewed the amount of bold text tends to get less and less. That was my objective, find a way to get rid of the bold text. Another thing those two articles have in common, is even though they reach state lines, the state lines are not included in the exit list. The reason is, there is no exit at the state line, so why would the state line be listed as an exit?

Both of the FA articles mentioned above have relatively simple exit lists. There is no precedent, that I know of, on how to handle a mixed road with freeway and non-portions, and other things that make an exit list on CA-14 or US-395 more complicated. So we're still on our own to form those standards. So your way could be right, or could mine. Don't worry I won't revert your changes. I was just trying something new. Dave (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify a point, "because WP:CASH does it" is not a reason to break MOS. MOS always overrides CASH. In fact, most of the California articles are nonstandard. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess people can just unbold things during reviews if they ask for it. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 01:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In truth, someone needs to go through the CASH articles and unbold stuff that should not be bolded. (among fixing other things) --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found 2 or 3 more FA articles that are freeways. An interesting one is Interstate 355, which does have bolded and linked text in the exit list that are not headings, a violation of the MOS. Oh well.Dave (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Mangalorean Catholics

Hello Dave. Thankyou for the excellent review. I think I have resolved all the issues. If you have more comments, you can put it up there. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 13:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Route 50 in Nevada

U.S. Route 50 in Nevada's junction list contained county abbreviations, and I noticed you added them. Do you have a source for that? (If you needed the source for California, you can find it off the Caltrans bridge log or traffic brach site.) -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

California State Route 14 and other stuff

Hello Dave. I've just made some edits to the article. Nothing major I think, just general copyedit/cleanup stuff such as dab fixing, overlinks, redirects, a parastub, typos, image and wikilink placement.

Other future plans for the freeway include adding carpool lanes between the 14 and the 5. Currently the northbound carpool lane begins pretty much when the freeway does, and the southbound carpool lane ends just after exit 2. Caltrans plan on completing this at around 2012. (http://www.the-signal.com/news/archive/3173/ from Santa Clarita Signal] Also, by mid 2010 the 14 will be connected to the 5 and 128 in another location. Recent work in Santa Clarita has connected the end of the 128 at the 5 to Newhall Ranch Road. The other end of Newhall Ranch Road is being connected to Golden Valley Road, and the 128 will then extend all the way though to the 14. [3], [4], [5], [6]. Just thought I'd let you know in case you wish to add it to the article.

Finally, I was reading a couple of books about the Antelope Valley over the weekend, and it turns out that in 1910 "Although San Fernando Road was graded dirt, it was a good one, and kept wet to eliminate the dust. San Fernando Road was marked at intervals with El Camino road signs indicating the route of the Spanish Padres. Thses posts were steel with long steel arms from which a mission bell was suspended." From the rest of the paragraph, I believe this is the area between Mint Canyon and the current San Fernando Road.(ref is ) In Lancaster, Sierra Highway was originally called Antelope Street. Streets parallel were Beech, Cedar, Date, Elm, Fig and Gadsden. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

THANKS! That is some good info. By all means, edit away. and Yeah I'll take a look. I'm currently working on a few other articles, I'll probably get back to this once this gets reviewed for GAC (it's in queue right now). Dave (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

[7]. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

USRD-CRWP WikiCup Status

This is just to let you know that you have been eliminated from the USRD-CRWP WikiCup. However, Scott5114 is planning another contest to open within the next few weeks. Also, there is always next year :) Good luck. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

SR-67 and whatnot

Interesting. I see it also includes a designation for SR-175, which is a project that creates a connection on 11400 South from SR-154 to I-15 (a new exit will be constructed at the latter) - right now, 11400 South is discontinuous between these two points. However, this new SR-175 isn't close to being done (not even sure if it's began construction yet), so I don't know why they would designate it as a state route so early on. Oh well. In any event, we'll rename Legacy Parkway to Utah State Route 67 once Huntsman signs the bill. Thanks for the update! CL — 05:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's one thing I hate more, it's a picture of a road that has a protruding windshield. But it's no problem, anything I can do besides create an article :) CL — 01:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Another contest from USRD!

Hello there! Now that round 1 of the USRD Cup is over, we're starting another USRD participation contest. The USRD Road Trip will involve expanding articles to B-Class in cities throughout the United States. Signups are open and the game will begin on at 0 UTC on February 17. Hope to see you play!—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mileposts for US 50 in Nevada

Hey Dave. At the UNR Library, I've recently found a wealth of old NDOT logs and publications in their Government Documents collection. Among those publications is a log of Nevada's US routes, complete with statewide and intermediate county milepost references for county lines, junctions, and some summits. Unfortunately, the latest version I could find is from 1971. Since you've done a bunch of research on the highway, do you know if US 50 has been realigned at all since that time? (Every other US route in Nevada, except maybe US 6, has had some realignment since then.) If it hasn't changed, I could work on including this reference in the junction & passes lists (it may take a while, cause junctions are referenced to the Pre-1976 Federal/State Aid route numbers, which would take some cross-referencing). Let me know. --LJ (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I do know that Nevada State Route 705 is the old route of US-50 between Carson city and Spooner Summit before being widened to 4 lanes. But I don't know when the new was built. I also recently learned that US-50 was re-routed in the eastern half of Fallon but that had to have been before the Naval Air station was created, cause the old route goes right through it. This would have been nice to know before I spent 4 hours on google maps doing this crap =-) Oh well, maybe the document is still mantained, but not published, have any contacts with the DOT?Dave (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK The Fallon alignment happened before 1960 (checking historical maps), Carson was between 1965 and 1970. Dave (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Dave. I found all those resources about three weeks ago, but didn't get to explore them fully. I was in the library yesterday and decided to take another look when I saw that book. A while ago, I asked a friend who worked briefly at NDOT about milepost logs for a research project I was doing (and hoping I could get more info for the NVSR articles); she said the milepost logs are in an electronic database through internal NDOT servers, i.e. not necessarily public. --LJ (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sierra Highway

How come you aren't using postmiles on Sierra Highway? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 23:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Because I couldn't find a source for postmiles, so I used Googlemaps. If you can find an official source for postmiles, knock yourself out. Dave (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in, but... would Sierra Highway even have postmiles? I know part of it was SR 14, but was all of it? (Did they reconstruct portions after the freeway was built?) If it did have postmiles, could we even find them since they are not current any longer? --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering that part of the road is maintained by LA County, other parts by Caltrans, and yet other parts by the cities, I doubt there is still a contiguous mile system in place. If the postmiles are still contiguous, they would most likely be using Caltrans historical postmiles from when this was CA-14 or maybe even US-6.Dave (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hours of Service is going to be on the main page

I was just the victim of an autoblock. For second there I thought I had been inadvertently caught up in wikidrama when I saw I had been blocked from editing. Meanwhile, my pride and joy Hours of service (I lie, I like Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula better) will be featured on the main page in two days, Feb 26. Sweet, now I can watch people try to vandalize and destroy all my hard work... woohoo. Anyway, isn't it Fat Tuesday or something? Happy Fat Tuesday! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well... it seems I was thorough with the article. I didn't count them, but it seems there were just as many edits in the ONE DAY it was on the main page as it took me to write the whole damn article up to FA standards. And not one of them added anything of value to the article. Just a bunch of vandalism and rearranging of words.... oh well. You were right though, I didn't have to revert any of the vandalism myself, everyone else did it for me. I did get a few comments complimenting my work, which was the best part. Everyone said it was well-written, readable, and unique. Its good to know other people have seen your work and actually appreciate it, that was the best part! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey if you're bored, you can help me with National Network. Do you know of any tools or anything that might make coding wikitables and massive numbers of piped wikilinking possibly less of a task? It is going to be one tedious effort to get that page all together. Also I put Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula up for FAC. So far two opposes but they are slowly changing over to support with my appeasing. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have similar problems. I've been looking for an editor that can help automate the table editing process. I've not found one yet that actually makes it easier. If I do, I'll let you know. I'll be joining you at FAC land soon, I've been working on U.S. Route 50 in Nevada for over a year now, I think just a few more tweaks, and it will be ready (famous last words). Good Luck! Dave (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hah, shoe trees! I saw one of these in Oregon on the side of a lonely road. People in the desert must have a lot of time on their hands. I wanted to stop and take a picture but I passed it anyway, I regret it. In the east we tend to throw shoes on power lines, this is one strange phenomena. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Middlegate

Okay, finding sources on this isn't as easy as I thought. After 15 minutes of searching library databases, all I have to show is a travel journal about Middlegate written for Trailer Life magazine and some articles about a gold company drilling near there. Not very encouraging. --Laser brain (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. It's a noble effort. In all seriousness it's on my get around to it list. The info is there, the best sources so far are books about the Lincoln Highway or Pony Express, although most have a one or two line mention of the station. I plan to be out that way in the next month or so. I'll do some digging. Thanks for your help.Dave (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

combining Nevada route articles

In reference to the minor route list discussion at WT:USRD: Dave, I'm gonna disagree with you about combining Nevada routes into county-based lists of minor routes. I think it gets into a sticky situation trying to define exactly what would classify a route as minor, especially when NDOT doesn't make a clear distinction themselves. Many articles aren't really "perma-stubs" and just need expansion. Nearly all of Nevada's 100-400 routes, and many 700-800 series routes have history traceable to the pre-1976 state highway system, which makes them a bit more notable and leaves room for expansion. Sure, WP:NVSR has a lot of stubs now, but many can be taken to at least C class with a little bit of work. When the USRD Cup was going on, I was concentrating on this type of expansion. Compare this stub version to this expanded version of Nevada State Route 264. I completed similar expansions for every route in Esmeralda and Nye Counties (except 376)--all such expansions were rated by Rschen7754 as C- or B-class. These may not be as captivating and full of cultural history as articles like U.S. Route 50 in Nevada (which you've done a great job with, by the way), but I do think it shows that many Nevada route articles have potential beyond just a stub or a list. --LJ (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, a case could possibly be made for combining many of the "urban" routes into one list, as this is something I've thought about doing. This would include many routes numbered 500-699 around Carson City, Las Vegas and Reno/Sparks with no attributable history. Some of these routes cover long arterials, some are random streets, while many others are <1 mile long--all are in the state system simply because NDOT owns the actual roadway. Such a list would have to be pretty well defined in its scope though... --LJ (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that's one of the reasons why I've put this off, until we get some guidance on how to to it. It sounds like we may get that guidance as a result of the slugfest going on over at WT:USRD. Dave (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

US 50 in NV

Congratulations on your hard work! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April fools

Oh man, looks like US 491 didn't make it to front page this year! IMO it was a much better candidate than that museum of art :) there's always 2010 however and you still got US 50 to a FA. Congrats! CL — 02:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on SR-128 - if it were to pass, it would be the first Utah state route article on the main page, right (I know I-70 in the state was featured)? As for me, I'm not editing all that much anymore though I check my watchlist from time-to-time and make minor edits for the most part, though I do have adding a more complete route description to SR-171 on my to-do list. Unfortunately, it seems that the Utah project has gotten back to task force days in terms of activity, albeit with higher-quality articles. Ah well, hopefully we'll get some editors in the near future (which somehow always seems to happen ) Oh, that I-15 thing - that's good to know I suppose that you're not criticizing the RD, but honestly, it needs a complete rewrite too. It's a bit inconsistent and like I said, it was written late at night. But I do appreciate it, and I do know you weren't attacking anything as well :) What else are you up to as far as Wikipedia goes? CL — 23:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I was working on several projects until I nominated U.S. Route 50 in Nevada for FAC, then that started taking all my time. That turned out to be a much bigger project than I anticipated, but I'm pleased with the result. Now that that's winding down, not sure what I'll work on next. The projects I abandoned were Interstate 70 in Colorado, consolidating articles in Nevada, and revamping the U.S. Road's Notability guidelines. (Personal pet peeve of mine. I'm tired of road articles that just re-hash google maps, never state why the government thought the highway was important enough to build, and I'm getting meaner about it). Yes, I do want to get back to some Utah article work, and have several I want to work on, the to-do list is just too big. I am quite serious that I do want to redo U.S. Route 491. That's one I'm not proud of, I tried to please everyone and instead pleased no-one. A good example of when to implore WP:IAR.Dave (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Noble thing, making articles featured. I find it a completely daunting task and don't plan on ever getting an article above good status, but perhaps that's just me :) Also, you're right with the Oh-I-could-find-all-this-info-on-Google-Maps articles, though I could see why they exist - some projects wanted to have blue links to all their articles and as a byproduct some articles are woefully short and un-encyclopedic. But as for US 491, or pretty much any other article that makes it to featured article status, you'll always displease some people. I don't see how the article would really disappoint anyone but I do wish you luck with the rewrite. Oh, and congrats on SR-128, now that it will actually made it to the front page! More exposure to USRD and UTSH is always good. CL — 23:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Moabdave. You have new messages at Ljthefro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Are main page articles usually unprotected? Argh - CL — 01:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not sure I agree with the reasoning, but they like to keep the main page unprotected to prove that this is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. I guess they figure, it's one page, we've got enough vandal fighters to keep it clean.Dave (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement

What do you think about possibly submitting DDSB for GA and ultimately FA? I think we can do it, we both already have FAs under our belts, and we can both work on issues which could potentially mean half the work of a regular article. I'm planning on going to the library anyway, so I will see if there is anything of value I can find. The subject matter is extremely interesting, IMO (dinosaurs and headless chickens anyone?), so the article would probably garner lots of interest at the very least, even if it doesn't pass the nominations. What do you think? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Utah State Route 128 and Interstate 70 in Utah are already at FA, and I'm working on Interstate 70 in Colorado again, hope to get it to FA eventually. So there's there's plenty of research on the bottom half done already. For me the toughest part would be researching the 2 Colorado State highways, I know nothing about them. Sure, as long as you're not in a hurry. I seem to not be able to keep focused on a single effort, I keep getting distracted. Cheers Dave (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the history of the routes needn't be too comprehensive since this is an article about the scenic designation not the routes themselves. And since the history is already done for the major routes, most of it is already done. I seem to have a lot of free time lately, and I have regained my recently waning interest in article improvement. I will see what I can do for it and if I have any questions I know who to come to. I will be sure to include your name in any nominations I initiate so we both can take credit for it. Thats all I wanted to say. On another note, I think you might find this interesting [ FBI database links long-haul truckers, serial killings]. I am shocked at the numbers of victims, but I can't say I'm not surprised! When the cop talks about spotting the speck of blood on the driver's hand, I got chills. I work with these people for christ's sake! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope the "seem to have a lot of free time lately" is in a good way. In this economy, I cringe to hear those words. Again, hope everything is ok. Yeah, that article is pretty creepy. Don't worry, You did all the work on that article, you get the credit.Dave (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

CA SR 78

How come you are against the italics? I find your version to be a bit confusing because (i.e. 13.17 and 43.56 in the same table cell may look confusing). Furthermore, why did you just give the article's map a caption? Is this your intent to make SR 78 inconsistent with all the other CASH articles? And finally, I noticed that you normally work with the road articles in the Mountain region. Those article practices don't apply to California. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Italics have specific uses per the Wikipedia manual of style, section on italics, many articles have abused italics, quotes, and bolding to the point that those formats have lost their intended meaning. Many new wikipedians believe they are there just to add emphasis, they are not. Frankly, misused italics and bolding make the articles look unprofessional and degrade the credibility of the article with professional people. There already is a notes column for just such purposes, why not use that, rather than inventing new formatting methods to add what are essentially notes.

Every road FAC that I have been involved with (including this one) has had complaints that the map was confusing. In this case it was addressed by revising the map, in other cases it has been revised by adding a caption.

Regarding WP:CASH, well frankly, most California road articles are a disaster. They were the first created. Standards have evolved and the majority are not compliant with current standards (both at the USRD and wikipedia in general level). This is not a bad thing per se, just means they need to be updated. But combine that with years of edit wars over the formatting of the exit list (won't mention names, but you know who I'm talking about), had caused them to further degrade. Frankly California is not the state to mimic for road article standards. I would look at the most recent FA's to pass and use those as a guide.

Dave (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, our California project was doing okay until NE2 (talk · contribs) stepped in. Most of his formatting isn't USRD compliant. He added the italics such as 86 42.07 into postmiles, his reference format did not use cite web template, and now the 75 IP (now I-15 (talk · contribs)) came in December, around the time I joined Wikipedia as AL2TB (talk · contribs). We've been basdically edit warring over each other, and I seem to contribute more productively when I-15 remains blocked. Do you have any suggestions for more constructive contributions and dealing with editors like I-15? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have about 4 or 5 areas that interest me. When someone is being difficult to deal with in a set of articles, I move on to another area, until things cool off.Dave (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

NV SR 375

Hi Dave. If you get a chance, could you take a look at Nevada State Route 375 and provide any suggestions for improvement? I've decided to "get gutsy" and would like to nominate it for GA soon (it'd be my first, and a first for a NV state route article). Thanks! --LJ (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'm slammed today, but probably tomarrow I can take a look.Dave (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK Never mind, I think this will pass GAC no problem, sources look good, history is interesting, etc. I only found one issue and one nitpic, both easily fixable.

1. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, there shouldn't be anything that's only stated in the lead. As such the "states least traveled routes" should be repeated somewhere else in the article. The only time that things are usually sourced in the lead (again as there isn't supposed to be new material) is a controversial statement that is likely to be challenged or a statement about a living person.
2. I'd add a statement to the lead saying something like "The highway was formally numbered State Route 25A. Then I'd unbold the State Route 25A in the history section. My personal opinion is that if it ain't notable enough to put in the lead, it ain't important enough to bold. But there are others who disagree. The WP:MOS isn't 100% clear on the subject giving somewhat conflicting advise, saying alternate titles that redirect to the article should be bolded, but also that only in rare occasions should text outside the lead be bolded.

Good luck, I sometimes do GA reviews, but would recluse myself from doing this one. But I'll be routing for you. Dave (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I made changes per your suggestions and am sending it on to GAN. --LJ (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Dearest Apologies

See NY 317s A-class review - I removed the comments with my sincerest apologies. Sorry for trouble.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 16:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have many times said something in frustration only to regret it, I understand completely. As stated above I'm slammed today, I'll take another look tomorrow.Dave (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)