User talk:Morriswa/Archives/2018/January
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Morriswa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
2012: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December
2013: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December
2014: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December
2015: January • February • March • May • June • September • October • November
2016: March • April • May • June • July • September • November • December
2017: January • February • April • June • July • August • December
2018: January • February • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December
2019: January • February • March • May • June • July • August • September • November
2020: January • March • April • July • August • September • October • November • December
Disambiguation link notification for January 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of highways numbered 35, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Interstate 35W and Interstate 35E (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Signed meaning
You can mount signs on a route but to indicate that signs have been mounted on a route would be posted. The past tense of sign is really an indication of a signature. WP recognizes the word signage which indicates a sign(s) and that can be past tensed as signaged.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Make sure you tell that to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads. If they determine that it is a valid thing, then we shouldn't have any problems. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Metro area transportation categories
Per past consensus, the appropriate county-level categories should be subcategories of the metro-area categories because metro areas in the US are defined by cities. Then, to prevent category overload on highway articles, articles should only be tagged for the county-level categories. (If there are also city-level categories, we use them only if the highway does not leave the city limits of that city, and then the city-level category would be a subcategory of the appropriate county-level category.) Also, it helps if the category is clearly named for the metro area, not just the cities. Imzadi 1979 → 23:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Evidently, the metro area page is actually named Minneapolis–Saint Paul, so someone made the Category:Transportation in Minneapolis–Saint Paul. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- All 16 counties within the metro area are now subcategories of the metro area category, including the two counties in Wisconsin. The two city-level categories are now subcategories of their respective county-level categories. The highway articles have been shifted out of the metro-area category. That's the way it should be done to avoid category overload, and to avoid breaking the categorization guidelines. Imzadi 1979 → 00:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Don't think me stupid, but could you "dumb that down" to make it simpler to understand? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- The Minneapolis–St. Paul metro area is officially defined as a collection of 16 counties, 14 in Minnesota and two in Wisconsin. Taking into account this structure:
- "Transportation in Minneapolis–Saint Paul" is the top level. There are no highway articles in that category to keep the bottom of the articles from having an overload of categories.
- "Transportation in Hennepin County, Minnesota" is the next level down. Highway articles are categorized here, unless the next point applies.
- "Transportation in Minneapolis" is the next level down. Highways that do not leave the city limits would be categorized here.
- "Transportation in Hennepin County, Minnesota" is the next level down. Highway articles are categorized here, unless the next point applies.
- "Transportation in Minneapolis–Saint Paul" is the top level. There are no highway articles in that category to keep the bottom of the articles from having an overload of categories.
- This structure has been applied to the other 15 counties that are officially a part of the metro area, and "Transportation in Saint Paul, Minnesota" is a subcategory of "Transportation in Ramsey County, Minnesota". We use only the most specific categories that's appropriate to minimize the number of them that appear at the bottom of an article. For our purposes, that's usually the county-level transportation categories. This also means we follow the guidelines about not using a parent category (metro-level) when also using a subcategory (county-level). Imzadi 1979 → 00:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- The Minneapolis–St. Paul metro area is officially defined as a collection of 16 counties, 14 in Minnesota and two in Wisconsin. Taking into account this structure:
- Don't think me stupid, but could you "dumb that down" to make it simpler to understand? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- All 16 counties within the metro area are now subcategories of the metro area category, including the two counties in Wisconsin. The two city-level categories are now subcategories of their respective county-level categories. The highway articles have been shifted out of the metro-area category. That's the way it should be done to avoid category overload, and to avoid breaking the categorization guidelines. Imzadi 1979 → 00:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of highways numbered 30, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages U.S. Route 30S and U.S. Route 30N (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Garagepunk66. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, South Dakota Highway 63, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Garagepunk66: Why did you mark it as unreviewed? It is a legitimate page. --Rschen7754 02:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. I wanted to let that article sit out an extra day or two and see if it might attract someone interested in making more of the recommended corrections to it, that's all. I didn't realize that Wiki sent you that robo-message above with my name. When I'm reviewing, after place a tag on an article (if it is new), I will often go back and re-mark it as "unreviewed" to let editors have a change to improve it, but if it has been in the queue for a couple of days, I'll go ahead and let it go ahead and get marked as "reviewed". Sorry for any misunderstanding. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Garagepunk66 and Rschen7754:, almost immediately after I started that page, I got the notification that this thread was started. I don't how it happened so quickly. The length source (from the SDDOT) didn't show all the mileposts for that road, nor did it show the proper length for the I-90 concurrency (it showed it as less than a mile, when its text clearly shows that it is a 7-mile-long concurrency!). Also, the "History" section needs help. Since SDDOT doesn't have historical maps, its difficult to fully flesh out the history of the articles. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. I wanted to let that article sit out an extra day or two and see if it might attract someone interested in making more of the recommended corrections to it, that's all. I didn't realize that Wiki sent you that robo-message above with my name. When I'm reviewing, after place a tag on an article (if it is new), I will often go back and re-mark it as "unreviewed" to let editors have a change to improve it, but if it has been in the queue for a couple of days, I'll go ahead and let it go ahead and get marked as "reviewed". Sorry for any misunderstanding. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)