| The following text is an archived discussion from the April 27, 2007 meeting on IRC. Do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made on IRC. No further edits should be made.
|
|
(9:01:40 PM) Rschen7754!n=rschen77@(hostname removed): Rschen7754 has changed the topic to: Welcome to U.S. Roads IRC meeting | This meeting is logged | Agenda: 1) county routes 2) cleanups
(9:01:49 PM) Master_son: County Routes
(9:01:56 PM) Northenglish: sweet
(9:02:01 PM) You are now known as vishwin60
(9:02:09 PM) Mitchazenia: well this is the one I came for
(9:02:29 PM) Northenglish: Consensus on WT:USRD seems to be that they're not worthy of individual articles (for the most part).
(9:02:31 PM) Rschen7754!n=rschen77@(hostname removed): Rschen7754 has changed the topic to: Welcome to U.S. Roads IRC meeting | This meeting is logged | Agenda: 1) county routes 2) cleanups 3) overstandardization 4) AID 5) news;etter
(9:02:46 PM) Rschen7754: i would disagree
(9:02:51 PM) Polaron: would it be useful to write up our own article inclusion guidelines?
(9:02:51 PM) Rschen7754: we have NYCR,. CACR...
(9:03:02 PM) Rschen7754: polaron: possibly
(9:03:08 PM) Polaron: similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29
(9:03:13 PM) Rschen7754: then we can point to it and then if theres an AFD they cant say anything
(9:03:17 PM) TwinsMetsFan: i agree with the consensus on WT:USRD
(9:03:20 PM) Northenglish: just because we have WikiProjects for them doesn't mean they're automatically notable.
(9:03:27 PM) TwinsMetsFan: agreed
(9:03:40 PM) Northenglish: They certainly can say something if they disagree with the guideline.
(9:03:44 PM) JohnnyAlbert10 [n=Compaq_O@(hostname removed)] entered the room.
(9:03:44 PM) #wikipedia-en-roads-us: mode (+v JohnnyAlbert10 ) by ChanServ
(9:03:49 PM) vishwin60: hello
(9:03:52 PM) Master_son: my experience with them is WI - I have one article talking about them as a whole (no individual articles) MO has a single article on secondary (supplemental) routes. MN and IA have no articles (and one user would rather not see them happen for MN)
(9:03:59 PM) TwinsMetsFan: NYCR...i dunno if it should exist, really
(9:04:04 PM) ***Northenglish just came from a rather nasty AfD brought about because WP:BIO is too vague.
(9:04:09 PM) TwinsMetsFan: NY's county system is not statewide
(9:04:21 PM) Rschen7754: CACR is notable
(9:04:25 PM) vishwin60: WY's county system is statewide
(9:04:29 PM) Polaron: for NY I think one per county system is useful
(9:04:31 PM) Rschen7754: then what about TX farm-market etc.?
(9:04:32 PM) Northenglish: As NE2 said, I think California's and NJ's 500-series are exceptions.
(9:04:37 PM) Master_son: CA has selected counties right?
(9:04:40 PM) Polaron: plus individual exceptional routes
(9:04:44 PM) SPUI: oh meeting time
(9:04:47 PM) Northenglish: they're statewide systems
(9:04:48 PM) TwinsMetsFan: NY should have only certain roads
(9:04:55 PM) Mitchazenia: NJs based more with county routes than state routes,
(9:04:55 PM) vishwin60: same with WY
(9:04:56 PM) Rschen7754: CA usually has 1 route per county at least
(9:04:57 PM) Northenglish: as are TX's farm to market roads
(9:05:00 PM) TwinsMetsFan: ones where something can actually be said
(9:05:12 PM) Northenglish: essentially state secondary highways.
(9:05:24 PM) SPUI: farm to market roads might not all be good for articles
(9:05:26 PM) vishwin60: MO's SSRs come to mind
(9:05:38 PM) Master_son: One article for all MO SSRs
(9:05:44 PM) Master_son: that is what we have right now
(9:05:45 PM) vishwin60: hmm, probably not
(9:05:47 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: but about PA quadrants?
(9:05:47 PM) Master_son: and its not that long
(9:05:51 PM) SPUI: many states have a secondary system - MO, VA, NC, TX, PA
(9:05:59 PM) Master_son: MT
(9:06:02 PM) vishwin60: some of MO's SSRs can be in their own articles
(9:06:04 PM) SPUI: I think those should be treated like county routes
(9:06:11 PM) SPUI: write in article if it's major
(9:06:12 PM) vishwin60: like MO SSR D in St. Louis
(9:06:13 PM) SPUI: an*
(9:06:13 PM) TwinsMetsFan: JA10: PA quadrants are the same as NY county routes in my mind
(9:06:25 PM) TwinsMetsFan: if something can actually be said, than write an article
(9:06:25 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: right
(9:06:31 PM) vishwin60: PA quadrants designate arterials
(9:06:34 PM) Master_son: I haven't seen a county route that was significant in my experience
(9:06:34 PM) Polaron: of course any freeway or mostly freeway county routes probably deserve their own article
(9:06:36 PM) Northenglish: but only if something can actually be said.
(9:06:40 PM) vishwin60: yes
(9:06:50 PM) SPUI: freeways are probably always significant
(9:06:52 PM) Master_son: there really is much more than a handful of them in every state
(9:06:59 PM) Master_son: freeways maybe
(9:07:00 PM) vishwin60: freeways are always notable
(9:07:01 PM) Northenglish: no probably about it SPUI ;-)
(9:07:20 PM) SPUI: florida is kind of weird - most county routes were once secondary state routes
(9:07:24 PM) Master_son: how bout major streets in a city?
(9:07:32 PM) SPUI: and many of them really aren't very major
(9:07:34 PM) SPUI: but others are
(9:07:40 PM) SPUI: and were probably once primary
(9:07:41 PM) Master_son: such as those in Milwaukee (some have CR letters on them)
(9:07:50 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: streets are like county routes depending on the street
(9:07:58 PM) vishwin60: Market Street in Philadelphia is probably notable
(9:08:00 PM) SPUI: dude there is no firm line
(9:08:02 PM) Master_son: otherwise in WI county routes don't go into cities
(9:08:14 PM) SPUI: if you can write a decent article on it, do so
(9:08:20 PM) Northenglish: I agree with SPUI, re: no firm line.
(9:08:30 PM) TwinsMetsFan: county routes that were once state highways should be notable
(9:08:30 PM) vishwin60: yep, I also agree
(9:08:30 PM) Northenglish: The key word is *decent*.
(9:08:30 PM) SPUI: if you can only write "CR 696 goes from US 130 to the County Workhouse", don't
(9:08:35 PM) Northenglish: I.e. not stub.
(9:08:38 PM) Northenglish: lol
(9:08:42 PM) vishwin60: lol
(9:08:51 PM) SPUI: TwinsMetsFan, unless they were once secondary state highways
(9:08:54 PM) Master_son: That's a very good point SPUI
(9:09:07 PM) SPUI: that actually is a route in Middlesex County, NJ
(9:09:14 PM) TwinsMetsFan: SPUI: i'm referring to signed highways
(9:09:18 PM) Northenglish: That's what? 0.19 miles long?
(9:09:19 PM) vishwin60: wait, what about CT's State Roads?
(9:09:27 PM) vishwin60: nm
(9:09:33 PM) Master_son: I've seen state hwys shorter than that :?
(9:09:39 PM) Polaron: mostly can be merged to related signed route
(9:09:47 PM) vishwin60: VT F-5 is pretty short
(9:09:49 PM) TwinsMetsFan: my focus is on roads like ex-NY 339
(9:09:50 PM) SPUI: a special unsigned system is probably "secondary" as well
(9:09:51 PM) Mitchazenia: what about state routes that become county routes (ie [[New York State Route 149]])
(9:10:01 PM) SPUI: Mitchazenia, those are former primary state routes
(9:10:03 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: hmm
(9:10:05 PM) Northenglish: So... are we lumping state secondaries in with this?
(9:10:06 PM) Polaron: a few CT SRs are notable though
(9:10:14 PM) vishwin60: SR 695, I guess
(9:10:20 PM) TwinsMetsFan: state secs are the same level IMO
(9:10:22 PM) SPUI: state secondaries should probably be lumped in
(9:10:23 PM) TwinsMetsFan: so yes
(9:10:30 PM) SPUI: including florida's S- routes
(9:10:35 PM) SPUI: eliminated in the 1980s
(9:10:38 PM) Mitchazenia: SPUI, i mean 149 ends and becomes Warren County 23
(9:10:48 PM) TwinsMetsFan: we should also cover NY reference routes
(9:10:54 PM) vishwin60: agreed
(9:10:58 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: yup
(9:10:58 PM) TwinsMetsFan: there's a lot of crap articles written for those
(9:11:05 PM) Northenglish: But then what about NJ's 500-series?
(9:11:08 PM) SPUI: unless they're so minor that you can't write anything
(9:11:24 PM) SPUI: 500-series is more limited than most secondary systems
(9:11:28 PM) TwinsMetsFan: i'll find one that embodies that
(9:11:32 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: i feel like NJ county routes are like state routes
(9:11:38 PM) Master_son: Something to think about - many states have many many CRs. (WI, MN, IA come to mind) and they usually would have a pattern (such as IA and a coord system) At least an article on the system (or maybe a section on the state highway article/list) and mention some you think are notable there. If you have enough info - valid info - on a route to take it past stub level - write one, otherwise - don't bother.
(9:11:39 PM) SPUI: under 100 in the whole state
(9:11:55 PM) Northenglish: JohnnyAlbert10: If you're limiting that to 500-series, I agree.
(9:11:58 PM) vishwin60: IN's CR system is statewide as well
(9:12:23 PM) vishwin60: except that they're unsigned and are designated, i.e. 500 East
(9:12:35 PM) SPUI: if the secondary system duplicates numbers between counties, it's like a county system
(9:12:43 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: NJ dont have many state routes so the CR are like the state routes
(9:12:51 PM) TwinsMetsFan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_910C - we shouldn't have articles like this
(9:12:53 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: 500 series that is
(9:12:56 PM) TwinsMetsFan: not for 0.06 miles
(9:13:01 PM) Polaron: haha
(9:13:06 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: lol
(9:13:07 PM) Master_son: thats overkill
(9:13:15 PM) SPUI: TwinsMetsFan, merge to Menands?
(9:13:16 PM) vishwin60: prod, maybe?
(9:13:19 PM) Northenglish: Regarding SPUI's "firm line", I think we do have to draw a line... not between the notable and non-notable... but between an automatically notable state highway and another highway that may or may not be.
(9:13:27 PM) Polaron: that should be merged with NY 32
(9:13:31 PM) Northenglish: (did that make sense?)
(9:13:36 PM) SPUI: yeah, that makes sense
(9:13:37 PM) TwinsMetsFan: agree with Polaron
(9:13:40 PM) Rschen7754: ya, merge it somewhere
(9:13:44 PM) Mitchazenia: what about something like 7 Lakes Drive? That road is pretty notable
(9:13:48 PM) SPUI: probably work it out by state
(9:13:53 PM) Master_son: where's that?
(9:13:57 PM) Polaron: NY
(9:14:08 PM) SPUI: Mitchazenia: <SPUI> if you can write a decent article on it, do so
(9:14:09 PM) Master_son: I wouldn't have known about it
(9:14:23 PM) SPUI: I'm not sure if I agree with your definition of "decent article" though...
(9:14:27 PM) vishwin60: Elkhart CR 17 in IN is notable
(9:14:34 PM) Northenglish: I think "parkway routes" are somewhat automatically notable... things that are strictly "reference routes" are not.
(9:14:40 PM) TwinsMetsFan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_912C - another
(9:14:41 PM) Polaron: yup: we should come out with a guideline about which highways are automatically notable, which ones are not, and of those not automatically notable, what makes one notable
(9:14:49 PM) Northenglish: Thus Seven Lakes Drive would be.
(9:14:49 PM) vishwin60: agreed
(9:14:53 PM) Rschen7754: state by state?
(9:15:07 PM) vishwin60: Elkhart CR 17 would be notable as it's the only signed CR in IN
(9:15:08 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: parkways r very notables, some are freeways
(9:15:09 PM) Northenglish: I'd prefer not state by state, if there's a way to do so.
(9:15:33 PM) SPUI: we should have a page listing the standard for each state
(9:15:42 PM) TwinsMetsFan: how about this: statewide systems are fine, ones that aren't - use discretion?
(9:15:43 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: agreed
(9:15:43 PM) SPUI: first list the states for which all state highways are fine
(9:15:46 PM) SPUI: then list the exceptions
(9:16:03 PM) Master_son: ok, I'm confused
(9:16:43 PM) Northenglish: care to elaborate, Master_son? I'm sure a number of us didn't follow that, since there were about three conversations at once. :)
(9:16:49 PM) vishwin60: yeah
(9:16:49 PM) Rschen7754: SPUI: state highways? or just county routes?
(9:17:01 PM) Master_son: What Rschen said
(9:17:14 PM) SPUI: just a general page "per state, these routes should have articles"
(9:17:22 PM) SPUI: county routes can be included
(9:17:24 PM) Northenglish: I think SPUI meant state highways... since we're now talking about Reference Routes, secondary highways, etc.
(9:17:31 PM) SPUI: like in NJ, state highways and 5xx
(9:17:43 PM) Master_son: Makes sense to me.
(9:17:43 PM) Rschen7754: i.e.
(9:18:06 PM) Rschen7754: ok...
(9:18:14 PM) Rschen7754: we all agreed?
(9:18:22 PM) Northenglish: lol... with what?
(9:18:29 PM) Master_son: what North said
(9:18:29 PM) SPUI: of course exceptions work in both directions - if the state assigns a number to the state house driveway, it probably doesn't need its own article
(9:18:38 PM) Master_son: lol
(9:18:45 PM) vishwin60: lol
(9:18:48 PM) Master_son: that's how far some states will take it LOL
(9:18:52 PM) SPUI: I think there's one in texas that's a cemetery
(9:18:57 PM) SPUI: it's a primary route too
(9:18:59 PM) Master_son: how bout the governor's driveway
(9:19:03 PM) Master_son: ;)
(9:19:12 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: uhhh
(9:19:14 PM) Northenglish: A lot of the Mississippi "reference routes" are like that.
(9:19:49 PM) SPUI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Highway_165 - though it is a decent article
(9:20:10 PM) Rschen7754: with creating a guideline page and putting the notable routes on there
(9:20:17 PM) Master_son: in WI - each state highway (STH) has its own article. WI County routes, Rustic Roads (a tour route), have artilces on the system, and Bannered routes (which I don't see having their own articles) are on a list
(9:20:42 PM) SPUI: ooh, bannered routes is another issue
(9:20:42 PM) Northenglish: [[Wikipedia:Notability (numbered highways)]] ?
(9:20:57 PM) SPUI: I see them as similar to suffixed routes
(9:21:08 PM) Northenglish: If enough can be said, go for it; otherwise merge them into the parent route.
(9:21:13 PM) Master_son: WI bannered are pretty much all Business routes
(9:21:19 PM) Master_son: just through cities
(9:21:26 PM) TwinsMetsFan: SPUI, not sure i agree with that, at least not in NY
(9:21:29 PM) Master_son: and only three of them are state funded
(9:21:29 PM) SPUI: some states use an A suffix for business routes
(9:21:34 PM) Master_son: not WI
(9:21:36 PM) SPUI: NY had 1A and 9A
(9:21:44 PM) Northenglish: Agree with TMF... certainly the case elsewhere, but not in NY.
(9:21:44 PM) SPUI: which became US 1/9 Business in NJ
(9:22:04 PM) Northenglish: I disagree... they just happened to be the first suffixed routes.
(9:22:07 PM) TwinsMetsFan: i know NY 31F is much more important than some business route
(9:22:11 PM) Northenglish: Followed by 9B, 9C, 9D, etc.
(9:22:25 PM) Master_son: TMF and Northenglish have a point there
(9:22:34 PM) vishwin60: I agree with both of them
(9:22:45 PM) Northenglish: If they were meant to be equivalent to bannered routes, they at least would have been US 1A / US 9A.
(9:22:59 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: agreed
(9:23:03 PM) SPUI: according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_9B it was formed in 1929
(9:23:06 PM) Northenglish: actually, strike that... RI 9A
(9:23:07 PM) SPUI: 9A is from 1934
(9:23:08 PM) Master_son: I really cannot see short through city surface roads (business routes) being notable enough for their own articles
(9:23:31 PM) Master_son: maybe a mention on the parent route's article and that's it.
(9:23:41 PM) SPUI: but if they change the number from US X Business to SR foo, it is fine?
(9:23:54 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: but about truck routes?
(9:24:01 PM) Northenglish: Regardless, how are you going to draw the line between 9A is a bannered route, but 9N is not?
(9:24:02 PM) SPUI: oh never mind, 9A went north from NYC
(9:24:05 PM) Master_son: most business routes in WI get changed to County routes
(9:24:24 PM) SPUI: Northenglish, I'm arguing in the other direction - that bannered routes may be fine
(9:24:30 PM) SPUI: but it probably does depend on the state
(9:24:36 PM) Northenglish: Agreed.
(9:24:43 PM) Northenglish: Not even the state, just the route.
(9:25:03 PM) SPUI: yes, since there's an easy merge target
(9:25:06 PM) Northenglish: Basically, same thing as county routes, LOL.
(9:25:08 PM) Master_son: On the other hand - Business I-40 or Business I-85 in NC or Business I-80 in CA - those are different - and notable
(9:25:13 PM) Northenglish: Yes.
(9:25:22 PM) SPUI: US 1/9 Truck
(9:25:23 PM) Master_son: they're freeways
(9:25:23 PM) Master_son: and
(9:25:32 PM) Northenglish: If they're notable, they are, and if they're not, they're not.
(9:25:41 PM) Polaron: sounds logical :)
(9:25:42 PM) Master_son: B-I-80 in CA has quite a history behind it too
(9:25:47 PM) Master_son: ROFL
(9:25:57 PM) SPUI: again with the "if you can write a decent article, do so"
(9:26:06 PM) Northenglish: right... that's what I was saying.
(9:26:15 PM) Northenglish: And what I've been saying for quite some time.
(9:26:19 PM) ***Northenglish searches for diff.
(9:26:24 PM) Master_son: North and Polaron - thanks for the quotes lol
(9:26:46 PM) SPUI: and really, that also applies to primary state routes - if all you can write is a single sentence, merge it somewhere
(9:27:03 PM) Northenglish: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Jersey_State_and_County_Routes&oldid=61288975
(9:27:16 PM) Northenglish: End of What to include? section... dated June 30, 2006.
(9:27:21 PM) Polaron: I know of a couple of those in CT where there's not much to write about
(9:27:24 PM) Northenglish: Not to brag or anything, but...
(9:27:26 PM) Northenglish: ;)
(9:27:39 PM) Master_son: too late :P
(9:27:43 PM) Northenglish: lol
(9:27:48 PM) Northenglish: I know... sorry. :)
(9:28:35 PM) Northenglish: So umm... I think *now* we can ask if we're agreed...
(9:28:40 PM) Northenglish: Are we?
(9:29:16 PM) SPUI: agreed that primary unbannered routes are almost always fine; secondary and county routes depend on the state and usually the route
(9:29:22 PM) Polaron: are CA and NJ the only count route systems that are "automatically notable"?
(9:29:37 PM) Master_son: nothing's automatically notable IMHO
(9:29:49 PM) SPUI: "automatically probably fine"
(9:29:56 PM) SPUI: yes, I think CA and NJ are the only ones
(9:30:06 PM) Northenglish: And NJ 500-series only.
(9:30:08 PM) SPUI: maybe HI, since all of those are former state highways
(9:30:14 PM) SPUI: but that's a different reason
(9:30:15 PM) vishwin60: hmm
(9:30:23 PM) Master_son: hmm
(9:30:25 PM) SPUI: hmm
(9:30:28 PM) vishwin60: lol
(9:30:31 PM) Rschen7754: hmm
(9:30:35 PM) Master_son: ROFL
(9:30:39 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: hmm
(9:30:41 PM) Northenglish: I would have joined in, but I made a typo.
(9:30:43 PM) vishwin60: lol
(9:30:57 PM) Northenglish: Stupid Y key.
(9:31:13 PM) Master_son: ymmm
(9:31:28 PM) Northenglish: actually, it was more like, hymmm.
(9:31:34 PM) Master_son: got it
(9:31:41 PM) Master_son: you singing again?
(9:31:43 PM) Rschen7754: anyway, moving on
(9:32:02 PM) vishwin60: cleanups
(9:32:04 PM) Northenglish: moving on with the assumption that there's agreement?
(9:32:15 PM) Polaron: so no article for CT SR911 :-)
(9:32:16 PM) vishwin60: Rschen7754?
(9:32:21 PM) Rschen7754: ya
(9:32:31 PM) SPUI: even kurumi doesn't have separate "articles" for most unsigned routes
(9:32:37 PM) Northenglish: lol
(9:32:40 PM) vishwin60: <@Northenglish> moving on with the assumption that there's agreement?
(9:32:42 PM) Northenglish: well there you go.
(9:32:53 PM) Master_son: his signmaker probably can't handle that route :P
(9:33:07 PM) Polaron: well SR911 is sort of signed
(9:33:14 PM) Master_son: there
(9:33:16 PM) Polaron: on I-84 not on the route
(9:33:20 PM) SPUI: what, the emergency 911 signs?
(9:33:21 PM) Master_son: oh
(9:33:26 PM) Master_son: ROFLMAO
(9:33:31 PM) Polaron: on the overpass
(9:33:37 PM) SPUI: oh, that doesn't count
(9:33:57 PM) Master_son: no, the markings on the road itself ;)
(9:34:13 PM) Northenglish: eh, heck... let's move on...
(9:34:13 PM) Master_son: Cleanup
(9:34:24 PM) Master_son: Are we the *only* wikiproject set to have these specifics?
(9:34:35 PM) Rschen7754!n=rschen77@(hostname removed): Rschen7754 has changed the topic to: Welcome to U.S. Roads IRC meeting | This meeting is logged | Agenda: 2) cleanups 3) overstandardization 4) AID 5) newsletter
(9:34:39 PM) Polaron: seems like it
(9:34:41 PM) Rschen7754: doubt it
(9:34:45 PM) Northenglish: As far as I've seen, and was brought up in the TFD, yes, we're the only ones with cleanup templates.
(9:34:57 PM) Northenglish: (of course not the only one with standards)
(9:35:15 PM) Polaron: theo nly ones with cleanup templates for subprojects
(9:35:21 PM) vishwin60: that too
(9:35:58 PM) Northenglish: As I said on WT:USRD... I'm totally fine with the trimmed down version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cleanup-usrd&oldid=125612121
(9:36:04 PM) Master_son: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cleanup_templates_for_WikiProjects
(9:36:29 PM) Master_son: ours seems to be the only category with them :?
(9:36:31 PM) Rschen7754: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup_resources
(9:36:31 PM) Polaron: so lonely
(9:36:32 PM) SPUI: haha I like how the TFD is in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cleanup_templates_for_WikiProject_U.S._Roads
(9:36:39 PM) Rschen7754: sec 3.22
(9:36:47 PM) Northenglish: yeah... how'd that happen SPUI?
(9:37:08 PM) SPUI: someone probably forgot a :
(9:37:13 PM) Rschen7754: there are sp,e
(9:37:15 PM) Rschen7754: *some
(9:37:28 PM) TwinsMetsFan: how about the design i implemented on the NY and NC templates?
(9:37:49 PM) SPUI: yeah "[[Category:Cleanup templates for WikiProject U.S. Roads]] would need to be deleted if the these templates were deleted - it would serve no purpose."
(9:37:57 PM) Master_son: Now I can see why they are griping
(9:37:58 PM) TwinsMetsFan: (long before this whole issue came up, i might add)
(9:38:12 PM) vishwin60: hmm
(9:38:14 PM) Northenglish: As far as I see... the only one there that names a Wikiproject is the school one.
(9:38:21 PM) Rschen7754: TMF: works for me
(9:38:41 PM) Rschen7754: northenglish: video games one does
(9:39:02 PM) Polaron: and the schools one is for all schools not for schools by state/country/whatever
(9:39:14 PM) Polaron: we are the most specific one
(9:39:15 PM) TwinsMetsFan: then we should probably get that design implemented across USRD, to start with
(9:39:19 PM) vishwin60: there's a TV one
(9:39:22 PM) Northenglish: TMF: That looks like Vishwin's compromise.
(9:39:39 PM) Northenglish: i.e. trim it down, but keep in a link to the project page.
(9:39:50 PM) TwinsMetsFan: yeah, i had a feeling this was going to come up
(9:39:54 PM) Master_son: I agree with TMF on this
(9:39:59 PM) Northenglish: The question is, can we get Matt Yeager behind it?
(9:40:02 PM) TwinsMetsFan: so i took care of the NC and NY templates immediately after the TFD
(9:40:08 PM) Rschen7754: ya so we'll go with that?
(9:40:22 PM) Polaron: seems reasonable
(9:40:27 PM) Master_son: agreed
(9:40:34 PM) Northenglish: To repeat: The question is, can we get Matt Yeager behind it?
(9:40:44 PM) Master_son: who's Matt Yeager?
(9:40:46 PM) Rschen7754: thats the prob
(9:40:54 PM) Rschen7754: (keep in mind this is logged)
(9:41:05 PM) Northenglish: [[WT:USRD#Here's the problem]]
(9:41:20 PM) TwinsMetsFan: i'm not sure if he will agree to anything other than a generic cleanup template based on his comments
(9:41:28 PM) Northenglish: I know it's logged... that's why I'm making sure he's represented. :)
(9:41:33 PM) Rschen7754: correct
(9:41:39 PM) Northenglish: TMF: We'll get the version I linked to above.
(9:42:09 PM) Northenglish: It'll still categorize for us... and we can specify specifically which design standards in the rationale.
(9:42:16 PM) Rschen7754: correct
(9:42:29 PM) Rschen7754: and people will just have to live with our templates
(9:42:31 PM) ***Northenglish mutters to himself "specify specifically". I'm full of quotes today.
(9:42:41 PM) Rschen7754: if tehy complain, we point to the ohter similar templates
(9:42:42 PM) Northenglish: Why do they just have to live with them?
(9:42:52 PM) Master_son: like which?
(9:42:55 PM) Polaron: there seem to be several cleanup templates that mention "WikiProject"
(9:43:15 PM) Rschen7754: cleanup-school, the video games one, etc
(9:43:16 PM) FailureFox: here's a plan
(9:43:17 PM) Polaron: unless there is an ongoing effort to remove all of them, then I think we should be able to link to the project page
(9:43:23 PM) Rschen7754: ya
(9:43:27 PM) FailureFox: infiltrate the other projects
(9:43:32 PM) FailureFox: create equivalent templates
(9:43:51 PM) FailureFox: profit
(9:43:54 PM) Master_son: then see if they are TfD?
(9:44:01 PM) vishwin60: yeah
(9:44:19 PM) Northenglish: ignoring that... I'm in agreement... let's keep the link for now, and if Matt Yeager still objects, revisit with him then
(9:44:34 PM) Northenglish: but definitely trim down the template
(9:44:35 PM) Rschen7754: ya
(9:44:40 PM) Rschen7754: invite him to irc or something
(9:44:40 PM) Master_son: agreed
(9:44:41 PM) vishwin60: a similar template is cleanup-university
(9:45:11 PM) SPUI: how about "see the talk page for any WikiProjects that might be able to help"?
(9:45:29 PM) Northenglish: Perhaps.
(9:45:29 PM) TwinsMetsFan: for the record: trim down the template using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cleanup-nysr as a basis?
(9:45:29 PM) Northenglish: Yes.
(9:45:30 PM) Polaron: might be a good compropmise
(9:45:30 PM) Rschen7754: ya
(9:45:30 PM) Northenglish: Which looks identical to Matt Yeager's version, save for the link.
(9:45:30 PM) Rschen7754: SPUI: as a second choice i suppose
(9:45:43 PM) Master_son: Doesn't he only support {{cleanup}}
(9:45:48 PM) Master_son: acc to the entry?
(9:45:56 PM) Northenglish: No, he provided us four alternatives.
(9:45:57 PM) TwinsMetsFan: yeah, i see no reason not to have the link as long as the WP is not explicity mentioned
(9:46:04 PM) Northenglish: This is a variation of B.
(9:46:52 PM) Northenglish: A was talk page, C was {{cleanup}}, D was move the standards into Wikipedia: space, like was done for the ELG.
(9:47:14 PM) TwinsMetsFan: and to me, A,C and D are garbage
(9:47:20 PM) vishwin60: agree
(9:47:31 PM) Mitchazenia left the room (quit: "CGI:IRC (Ping timeout)").
(9:47:36 PM) Northenglish: D could work if we could agree on a single standard, which we can't yet.
(9:47:45 PM) Rschen7754: correct
(9:47:49 PM) Master_son: ok I was confused for a moment - now I'm not - and I say that C doesn't make sense in this matter. D seems like a wash since standards change
(9:48:02 PM) ***Northenglish motions towards "3) overstandardization" in the agenda.
(9:48:02 PM) Master_son: A - who would notice them on the talk page?
(9:48:10 PM) Rschen7754: ya
(9:48:11 PM) ***Master_son has to get out of here
(9:48:13 PM) Master_son: later
(9:48:17 PM) TwinsMetsFan: peace
(9:48:18 PM) Northenglish: aww, okay
(9:48:20 PM) Northenglish: see ya
(9:48:24 PM) Master_son left the room.
(9:48:34 PM) SPUI: wait, doesn't the normal {{cleanup}} say "see the talk page for more"?
(9:48:39 PM) vishwin60: yeah
(9:48:41 PM) Northenglish: Yes.
(9:48:44 PM) vishwin60: nobody ever posts
(9:48:51 PM) SPUI: so we could put the normal one on the article and the special one on talk
(9:48:55 PM) Northenglish: We replace that by putting the rationale in the tag itself.
(9:49:11 PM) Northenglish: hmm...
(9:49:14 PM) vishwin60: exactly
(9:49:25 PM) Northenglish: Vishwin: exactly what?
(9:49:25 PM) Rschen7754: seems like too much work
(9:49:46 PM) vishwin60: rationale on the tag
(9:49:49 PM) Northenglish: k
(9:50:48 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: who long is the meeting?
(9:51:04 PM) Northenglish: how long?
(9:51:06 PM) Rschen7754: dunno
(9:51:12 PM) Northenglish: till we finish the agenda.
(9:51:14 PM) SPUI: however long it needs to be
(9:51:15 PM) Rschen7754: however long it takes to get throgh the issues :|
(9:51:18 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: ok
(9:51:22 PM) SPUI: if it's too short we merge it to another meeting
(9:51:26 PM) vishwin60: are we in agreement with the cleanup templates?
(9:51:31 PM) Northenglish: fortunately 4 and 5 are behind the scenes.
(9:51:42 PM) Polaron: nysr solution looks good for now
(9:51:46 PM) Northenglish: for now, yes.
(9:51:51 PM) Polaron: we just need to try to convince the others
(9:52:07 PM) vishwin60!n=vishwin6@(hostname removed): vishwin60 has changed the topic to: Welcome to U.S. Roads IRC meeting | This meeting is logged | Agenda: 3) overstandardization 4) AID 5) newsletter
(9:52:14 PM) Northenglish: others meaning Matt Yeager about keeping the link?
(9:52:14 PM) SPUI: or maybe you can clean up the articles
(9:52:28 PM) Polaron: haha that's the best solution
(9:52:31 PM) vishwin60: lol
(9:52:49 PM) vishwin60: next
(9:54:01 PM) vishwin60: overstandardization
(9:56:32 PM) Northenglish: well, yes, SPUI, that is the goal. :-P
(9:56:32 PM) Rschen7754: ya
(9:56:32 PM) Northenglish: Just takes too much time that none of us have.
(9:57:40 PM) vishwin60: moving on here...
(10:00:23 PM) vishwin60: should all of the USRD articles have some sort of a uniform look to them?
(10:00:32 PM) TwinsMetsFan: that is currently slated for 2013
(10:00:32 PM) Northenglish: lol
(10:00:32 PM) Rschen7754: lol
(10:00:32 PM) Northenglish: Pending the completion of the PA Tpk/I-95 interchange...
(10:00:32 PM) FailureFox: that's about when I-130 will be in effect
(10:00:32 PM) Rschen7754: overstandardization/../
(10:00:32 PM) TwinsMetsFan: ooh overstandardization...that's been a hot topic in here a few times
(10:00:32 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: big word
(10:00:32 PM) Northenglish: lol
(10:00:32 PM) Rschen7754: i think it was mainly concerns regarding the movement?
(10:00:32 PM) Northenglish: "the movement"?
(10:00:32 PM) SPUI: the communist movement
(10:00:32 PM) SPUI: duhhhhhhh
(10:00:32 PM) Rschen7754: uggh history
(10:00:32 PM) FailureFox: larouche
(10:00:32 PM) Rschen7754: anyway the... trend
(10:00:33 PM) Rschen7754: the progressive, communist, democratic, etc... :|
(10:00:33 PM) Rschen7754: what were teh concerns?
(10:00:33 PM) Northenglish: Basically, do WP:USRD guidelines apply to subprojects that were already successful?
(10:00:33 PM) TwinsMetsFan: my thoughts remain the same from WT:USRD
(10:00:33 PM) Rschen7754: yes and no
(10:00:33 PM) Rschen7754: infoboxes: that's somewhat critical
(10:00:33 PM) Northenglish: On a personal and/or specific note, does NJSCR have to switch to a template-style junction list?
(10:00:33 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: some subprojects have different guidelines
(10:00:33 PM) TwinsMetsFan: North: no
(10:00:33 PM) Polaron: Is it alright for CT to use "Town" instead of "Location" in exit lists?
(10:00:33 PM) Rschen7754: north: i'd say no
(10:00:33 PM) Northenglish: I agree with infoboxes and browsing... since there the states cross over.
(10:00:33 PM) Rschen7754: because there is no [[WP:USRD/JLG]]
(10:00:33 PM) SPUI: Polaron, should be fine
(10:00:33 PM) TwinsMetsFan: Polaron: as long as only towns are used, and not villages or cities
(10:00:33 PM) SPUI: or replace county with town
(10:00:33 PM) SPUI: TwinsMetsFan, [[New England town]]
(10:00:33 PM) Polaron: everything is a town in CT
(10:00:33 PM) Northenglish: i.e. It just doesn't work for [[Interstate 10]] to have Texas-style browsing in its srbox
(10:00:33 PM) Rschen7754: b/c doesnt ct have some stuff regarding townships and stuff?
(10:00:33 PM) TwinsMetsFan: well, there you go :P
(10:00:33 PM) Polaron: even the so-called cities are really towns
(10:00:33 PM) Northenglish: Right, but we do have [[WP:USRD]]... which seems to indicate that it has to be templates.
(10:00:33 PM) FailureFox: some junctions are literally in the middle of nowhere
(10:00:33 PM) TwinsMetsFan: well, that was the actions of one editor
(10:00:33 PM) Northenglish: moving on from where to where?
(10:00:33 PM) Rschen7754: north: not really
(10:00:33 PM) Northenglish: Essentially what I'd like to see is the opposite of the "Subproject delegation" clause.
(10:00:33 PM) Rschen7754: we have no standard of jct lists
(10:00:33 PM) Northenglish: If a subproject has a complete standard in place, that takes precedence over [[WP:USRD]]
(10:00:33 PM) Polaron: I'm for that
(10:00:33 PM) Rschen7754: i think that besides including mileposts there shouldnt be one
(10:00:33 PM) Rschen7754: north: to some extent
(10:00:33 PM) Rschen7754: obviously INNA doesnt count
(10:00:33 PM) Northenglish: Right, because that has to cross state lines.
(10:00:33 PM) Rschen7754: re ELG, i'm assuming it doesnt have to be precise
(10:00:36 PM) Rschen7754: i mean it should be close though
(10:00:37 PM) TwinsMetsFan: if my memory serves me right, the subproject clause was written for the browsing template only initially
(10:00:42 PM) Rschen7754: vishwin60: yes and no
(10:00:54 PM) Rschen7754: not every state is the same
(10:01:08 PM) Rschen7754: but some stuff like infoboxes,. browse, basic structure, should be same
(10:01:10 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: true
(10:01:25 PM) Northenglish: The basic format should be the same... text, exit/junction list in the form of a table, links
(10:01:41 PM) Northenglish: Preferably "Route description" should be the first text section.
(10:01:53 PM) Northenglish: I've never understood why [[WP:USH]] uses "States traversed"
(10:02:10 PM) Polaron: remnant of old system
(10:02:44 PM) Rschen7754: ya that needs to be fixed
(10:02:50 PM) Rschen7754: to whatever IH uses
(10:03:08 PM) TwinsMetsFan: route description, i think
(10:03:11 PM) Rschen7754: that project was created in 05 and hasnt changed too much
(10:03:14 PM) vishwin60: yeah, we better fix to rt desc
(10:03:16 PM) deepshuck [n=wwwww@(hostname removed)] entered the room.
(10:03:16 PM) Northenglish: If not it should be ;)
(10:03:43 PM) TwinsMetsFan: intrastate US routes already use route description
(10:04:01 PM) vishwin60: so should every USRD article
(10:04:04 PM) SPUI left the room (quit: Nick collision from services.).
(10:04:10 PM) Rschen7754: ya
(10:04:16 PM) Northenglish: I'm down with that.
(10:04:18 PM) Rschen7754: every state should ahve cleanup?
(10:04:37 PM) vishwin60: every state that has a project
(10:04:42 PM) Northenglish: Yeah... probably...
(10:04:54 PM) TwinsMetsFan: i used to say yes, now i'm not sure
(10:05:05 PM) TwinsMetsFan: after the TFD and the recent complaints
(10:05:06 PM) Northenglish: do tell
(10:05:23 PM) vishwin60: hmm
(10:05:57 PM) Rschen7754: its the best solution at this point imho
(10:06:06 PM) vishwin60: yeah
(10:06:22 PM) vishwin60: there is a possibility of mashing every state into the usrd template
(10:06:32 PM) Northenglish: Especially if we just decided that state guidelines take precedence.
(10:06:33 PM) vishwin60: {{#switch:{{{state}}}
(10:06:38 PM) Rschen7754: sounds like a coding probl though
(10:06:58 PM) Rschen7754: north: waht states specifically are we talking abour?
(10:07:02 PM) TwinsMetsFan: it'd be a lot easier if the NC for cleanup categories were consistent
(10:07:10 PM) vishwin60: yeah
(10:07:18 PM) Northenglish: If a state project has a complete guideline.
(10:07:26 PM) Rschen7754: ya we need to standardize teh cat names, stub names, etc
(10:07:27 PM) vishwin60: right
(10:07:38 PM) Rschen7754: that's 60-80% of states
(10:07:53 PM) Northenglish: 60-80 is a big range, lol
(10:07:58 PM) vishwin60: yeah
(10:08:14 PM) TwinsMetsFan: bigger question is "what state is at standards"?
(10:08:26 PM) TwinsMetsFan: when you have to ask that, you know there's a problem
(10:08:28 PM) Rschen7754: are we talking about WP page or artiucles?
(10:08:38 PM) TwinsMetsFan: stub/cat/cleanup NC
(10:09:00 PM) Northenglish: I was thinking WP page
(10:09:25 PM) ***vishwin60 sticks his finger towards NYSR
(10:09:42 PM) Northenglish: Thus Washington would qualify, even though it needs help to get to its own standards.
(10:09:46 PM) Rschen7754: that's 60-80% of all the states though
(10:10:11 PM) Rschen7754: i think only the states taht are nearly done should have any exemtpion from USRD standards
(10:10:22 PM) vishwin60: true
(10:10:28 PM) vishwin60: but MD's a disaster
(10:10:38 PM) vishwin60: even though it's complete
(10:10:45 PM) Northenglish: What you have to realize is that there aren't going to be many differences between those 60-80% and the USRD standards.
(10:10:45 PM) Polaron: you seem to be on a crusade against MD
(10:11:09 PM) vishwin60: MD is just terribly nonstandard
(10:11:13 PM) Northenglish: Well, Maryland doesn't have any structure on its project page.
(10:11:18 PM) Northenglish: So there you go.
(10:11:21 PM) vishwin60: it's on it's EG
(10:11:25 PM) vishwin60: a subpage
(10:11:29 PM) Polaron: it's on subpages if I recall
(10:11:34 PM) Northenglish: oh
(10:11:36 PM) Northenglish: nm
(10:11:46 PM) Northenglish: lol
(10:11:57 PM) Rschen7754: MD has some issues
(10:12:01 PM) Rschen7754: but it's not the worst
(10:12:56 PM) vishwin60: but it's pretty bad
(10:13:22 PM) vishwin60: biggie: no browsing whatsoever
(10:13:45 PM) Northenglish: What I see is that the counties and cities/towns sections need to be removed; history moved above exit list...
(10:14:07 PM) vishwin60: yeah
(10:14:36 PM) Northenglish: That's about it... browsing added... that's important
(10:15:37 PM) Northenglish: The alternate to giving subprojects precedence is to make USRD a little more lenient.
(10:16:04 PM) vishwin60: yeah
(10:16:06 PM) Northenglish: So that the "good" subprojects don't come into conflict with it
(10:16:27 PM) Northenglish: but the "bad" projects can still be tweaked so that they fall into line.
(10:17:44 PM) TwinsMetsFan: no problems with that on my end
(10:17:50 PM) vishwin60: agree
(10:17:52 PM) Polaron: what are the requirements of a "good" project?
(10:17:54 PM) Rschen7754: such as...
(10:18:03 PM) Northenglish: To be 100% honest... a major part of this is personal... and I'm happy with any solution that ends arguing on here between NJ-style and NY-style junction lists.
(10:18:10 PM) Rschen7754: brb
(10:19:09 PM) Northenglish: Polaron: Prose sections (ideally starting with "Route description"); junction list in the form of a table, minimally including mileposts; links
(10:19:25 PM) Northenglish: INNA is nationwide and has to be followed to a T.
(10:20:15 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: nationwide is on your side
(10:20:29 PM) Northenglish: ?
(10:20:42 PM) vishwin60: lol
(10:20:48 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: joke
(10:20:57 PM) Northenglish: oh
(10:20:58 PM) vishwin60: the only exception to INNA is WA
(10:21:01 PM) Polaron: does the junction table have to be certain format?
(10:21:04 PM) Northenglish: no, not even
(10:21:12 PM) Northenglish: (to Vishwin)
(10:21:20 PM) vishwin60: the NY-styled ones are recommended
(10:21:24 PM) TwinsMetsFan: Polaron: ELG derived
(10:21:31 PM) TwinsMetsFan: headers, anyway
(10:21:36 PM) Polaron: is there an option to add road names?
(10:21:38 PM) Northenglish: They're recommended by you Vishwin.
(10:21:46 PM) Northenglish: Personally, I discourage them.
(10:21:49 PM) vishwin60: road names are optional
(10:21:57 PM) Northenglish: Try subst'ing them, and you're in for a world of hurt.
(10:22:16 PM) vishwin60: I don't care if {{Jctint}} is even substed
(10:23:42 PM) Northenglish: No, my point is, I dislike the templates because the coding behind them is too complicated and not worth it when simple table syntax will do.
(10:23:58 PM) Northenglish: You can't subst {{Jctint}} because of all the parser functions.
(10:24:07 PM) vishwin60: right
(10:24:07 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: you'll understand it, i first had trouble wit it too
(10:24:13 PM) vishwin60: yeah, same here
(10:24:36 PM) vishwin60: as South Park says, "it's easier to persecute, than to understand"
(10:24:41 PM) Northenglish: It's not a question of understanding it... just what's the point?
(10:24:53 PM) Northenglish: I'm sure I could implement it no problem.
(10:25:16 PM) Northenglish: Also, why are they still using color when we decided it was a bad idea for exit lists?
(10:25:30 PM) vishwin60: as I've always said, jct lists are not exit lists
(10:25:35 PM) Polaron: yeah the color is a little much I think
(10:25:44 PM) vishwin60: we've come to an agreement on exit lists not having colours
(10:25:48 PM) Northenglish: I understand that, but with regards to color, the logic is identical.
(10:26:19 PM) Northenglish: There's no reason for a concurrency on a junction list to have color when a concurrency on an exit list does not.
(10:26:43 PM) vishwin60: hold on
(10:26:58 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: he has a good point
(10:27:27 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: i have no problem wit the colors on exit list
(10:27:51 PM) vishwin60: but the thing is, the colours on jct lists correspond with decomd, and unbuilt roads as well
(10:28:07 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: oh yeah, true
(10:28:17 PM) deepshuck: which is something you can say with text
(10:28:19 PM) deepshuck: "proposed I-99"
(10:28:21 PM) Northenglish: And if we wanted to, we could use gray for decommissioned highways on exit lists as well.
(10:28:24 PM) deepshuck: "former I-99"
(10:28:38 PM) vishwin60: and what about the overpasses/underpasses?
(10:28:49 PM) Northenglish: Those really shouldn't be on there period.
(10:28:50 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: orange?
(10:28:53 PM) vishwin60: yeah
(10:28:57 PM) vishwin60: and they should be there
(10:29:00 PM) deepshuck: yes, no access at all should not be there
(10:29:07 PM) Northenglish: It's a junction list.
(10:29:10 PM) Polaron: the colors are just a hold over from when they were in the infobox
(10:29:17 PM) Northenglish: There's no junction if there's no access.
(10:29:25 PM) TwinsMetsFan: Polaron, same w/ the no access
(10:29:41 PM) TwinsMetsFan: the colors and no access predate my wiki career
(10:29:46 PM) Northenglish: WE'RE WAY OFF TOPIC. ANYONE WANT TO MOVE ON WITH THE AGENEDA?
(10:29:50 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: it tells if an important freeways goves over/under the hwy
(10:30:00 PM) vishwin60: actually, major highways
(10:30:20 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: that too
(10:30:32 PM) deepshuck: if it does, SAY SO IN TEXT
(10:30:37 PM) deepshuck: WRITE A DESCRIPTION
(10:30:44 PM) deepshuck: THIS ROUTE RUNS HERE AND CROSSES HERE
(10:30:47 PM) Northenglish: It can be done with text in the route description section, but if it's not a junction, it shouldn't be in the junction list.
(10:30:48 PM) vishwin60: it's a table
(10:30:56 PM) deepshuck: <+Northenglish> It can be done with text in the route description section
(10:30:57 PM) deepshuck: yes
(10:30:58 PM) Northenglish: a table of junctions.
(10:31:28 PM) vishwin60: for example, US 40 in IN is a surface road for its entire length, but passes under SR 3
(10:31:54 PM) vishwin60: it's more likely a SLD
(10:32:26 PM) deepshuck: who cares if it passes under SR 3 if there's no access?
(10:33:08 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: but something needs to clarify that SR 3 passes under US 40
(10:33:13 PM) vishwin60: exactly
(10:33:33 PM) vishwin60: because SR 3 runs n-s, and by logic, it *has* to intersect US 40
(10:33:38 PM) deepshuck: say so in the description
(10:33:39 PM) TwinsMetsFan: how about this: use no access if there's no description
(10:33:40 PM) vishwin60: but it doesn't
(10:33:40 PM) Polaron: route description?
(10:34:06 PM) Northenglish: I'm going to take all this magical power I don't have, and ask if there's agreement that we should make [[WP:USRD]] more lenient so that "good" projects don't come into conflict with it. If there is agreement, then let's move on to the next item on the agenda, the AID.
(10:34:13 PM) Northenglish: This is a discussion for another time.
(10:34:51 PM) vishwin60: ok
(10:34:54 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: righty then
(10:34:56 PM) vishwin60: moving on here...
(10:35:03 PM) Northenglish: so, agreement?
(10:35:05 PM) deepshuck: just one more thing
(10:35:06 PM) deepshuck: <@vishwin60> because SR 3 runs n-s, and by logic, it *has* to intersect US 40
(10:35:09 PM) deepshuck: that's not true
(10:35:15 PM) deepshuck: indiana has discontinuous routes
(10:35:18 PM) ***Northenglish rolls eyes.
(10:35:25 PM) deepshuck: ok, move on now
(10:35:29 PM) Northenglish: lol
(10:35:38 PM) vishwin60: but there's no gap near US 40
(10:35:39 PM) Northenglish: fine then...
(10:35:40 PM) vishwin60: moving on
(10:35:49 PM) vishwin60!n=vishwin6@(hostname removed): vishwin60 has changed the topic to: Welcome to U.S. Roads IRC meeting | This meeting is logged | Agenda: 4) AID 5) newsletter
(10:36:11 PM) TwinsMetsFan: ok, AID
(10:36:15 PM) vishwin60: AID: there's not much activity
(10:36:19 PM) TwinsMetsFan: it's no secret this has been a bust
(10:36:32 PM) vishwin60: US 40 & 191 are in terrible shape
(10:36:42 PM) Northenglish: From what I've seen, the articles that have been nominated for improvement have barely been touched.
(10:36:52 PM) vishwin60: I've been trying to find lengths for US 40
(10:37:11 PM) deepshuck: haha AID
(10:37:28 PM) deepshuck: did *anything* come out of that better?
(10:37:39 PM) vishwin60: Ridge Route got back up to FA
(10:37:40 PM) Polaron: can we make a list of specific things to do for each chosen article?
(10:37:54 PM) deepshuck: oh
(10:38:10 PM) Northenglish: And not take them off the drive until something gets done.
(10:38:36 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: agreed.
(10:38:36 PM) vishwin60: exactly
(10:39:26 PM) Rschen7754: back
(10:39:51 PM) TwinsMetsFan: i think that was the temporary solution i put into the last newsletter
(10:40:06 PM) TwinsMetsFan: i have no problems making it permanent
(10:40:11 PM) Rschen7754: ya
(10:40:15 PM) Northenglish: Basically, there are two problems. One, hardly anyone participates in improving the articles. I certainly don't.
(10:40:21 PM) Rschen7754: it's also a pain to have to rotate the AID thing
(10:40:35 PM) Rschen7754: problem is, i usually wind up being stuck rotating it
(10:40:42 PM) Northenglish: But two, the few that do, before they get anywhere, they have to move on to the next one.
(10:41:58 PM) Rschen7754: what if we went down to 1 article
(10:41:58 PM) Rschen7754: ?
(10:42:00 PM) Polaron: probably better
(10:44:43 PM) Rschen7754: b/c it increases chances of working
(10:44:43 PM) Rschen7754: what if we say it has to increase 1 class bfore continuing?
(10:44:43 PM) deepshuck: haha article classes
(10:44:43 PM) Polaron: no need for that
(10:44:43 PM) Polaron: i'm sure we'll know if there was improvement
(10:44:43 PM) Rschen7754: ok
(10:44:43 PM) TwinsMetsFan: i don't consider stub -> start that much of an improvement
(10:44:43 PM) TwinsMetsFan: stub -> B, that's improvement
(10:44:43 PM) Rschen7754: but it should definitely not have a cleanup tag at the end
(10:44:43 PM) Rschen7754: lol
(10:45:07 PM) vishwin60: yep
(10:45:25 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: brb
(10:50:53 PM) vishwin60: ok so we're all in agreement here?
(10:53:40 PM) TwinsMetsFan: and all articles picked for AID, for right now, should be one tagged for cleanup
(10:53:41 PM) TwinsMetsFan: in an attempt to reduce the backlog
(10:53:41 PM) Northenglish: agreed
(10:53:41 PM) Rschen7754: ya
(10:53:41 PM) Polaron: good idea
(10:53:42 PM) TwinsMetsFan: and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:U.S._road_articles_lacking_cleanup_rationale should be cleaned out first
(10:53:42 PM) Rschen7754: ya
(10:53:42 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: im back
(10:53:42 PM) TwinsMetsFan: perhaps we should start with the main US routes
(10:53:42 PM) Rschen7754: not interstates
(10:53:42 PM) Rschen7754: ?
(10:53:42 PM) TwinsMetsFan: well, Interstates at least have rationale
(10:53:42 PM) Polaron: U.S. Route 1 needs help
(10:53:42 PM) Northenglish: LOL... one of the ones in that category was just tagged by Rschen an hour ago. :-P
(10:53:42 PM) Rschen7754: oh in regards to rationale
(10:53:42 PM) Rschen7754: guilty :|
(10:53:43 PM) Rschen7754: on... 1 AID, wait until improved, needs to be a cleanup?
(10:53:43 PM) Northenglish: one article at a time, keep them until they're actually improved, start with ones cleanup without rationale?
(10:53:43 PM) Northenglish: okay... Rschen beat me
(10:53:43 PM) Northenglish: but yes
(10:53:43 PM) TwinsMetsFan: agree with North's summary
(10:53:43 PM) Rschen7754: o ok
(10:53:43 PM) Rschen7754: ya
(10:53:43 PM) deepshuck: also choose ones that CAN be improved?
(10:53:44 PM) TwinsMetsFan: that won't be a problem with these articles
(10:53:44 PM) deepshuck: like not one-mile route to buttfuck egypt
(10:53:44 PM) Rschen7754: correct
(10:53:58 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: lol
(10:54:37 PM) TwinsMetsFan: the articles in the cat i linked are, in most cases, several hundred miles long
(10:54:44 PM) TwinsMetsFan: and lacking a description
(10:54:54 PM) TwinsMetsFan: so yeah, there's room for improvement
(10:55:58 PM) Rschen7754: so we're good there?
(10:56:07 PM) Rschen7754: i suppose somebody's gotta rewrite the instructions tehn
(10:56:38 PM) vishwin60: ok, moving on...
(10:56:49 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: yup, please
(10:56:53 PM) vishwin60!n=vishwin6@(hostname removed): vishwin60 has changed the topic to: Welcome to U.S. Roads IRC meeting | This meeting is logged | Agenda: 5) newsletter
(10:56:55 PM) Rschen7754: newsletter
(10:57:07 PM) vishwin60: our final topic before the meeting ends
(10:57:09 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: my favorite toppic
(10:57:39 PM) vishwin60: newsletters are delivered by VshBot
(10:57:57 PM) Northenglish: okay, specifically what's the problem with the newsletter?
(10:58:06 PM) vishwin60: not enough content
(10:58:15 PM) Rschen7754: it's growing inactive itself
(10:58:21 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: hmm...
(10:58:29 PM) Northenglish: So put it out less often.
(10:58:31 PM) Rschen7754: what's been suggested is having state project updates
(10:58:47 PM) Rschen7754: i mean the material is out there
(10:58:52 PM) vishwin60: yep
(10:58:52 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: look at wat's goin on at WT:USRD
(10:58:54 PM) Rschen7754: but we need more editors to write about it
(10:58:58 PM) vishwin60: yes
(11:00:20 PM) Rschen7754: and we need a more rigid schedule
(11:00:20 PM) Rschen7754: right now, i feel like i;'m doing most of the work
(11:00:29 PM) Northenglish: well, actually, maybe a less rigid schedule would help...
(11:00:31 PM) Rschen7754: and the last two issues i couldn't do much of it and the newsletter was done alst minute
(11:00:47 PM) vishwin60: yes, again
(11:00:52 PM) Northenglish: Just send it out once things are written.
(11:01:02 PM) vishwin60: uhh, no
(11:01:07 PM) Rschen7754: problem is, that coudl be every 6 months
(11:01:12 PM) vishwin60: yeah
(11:01:20 PM) Northenglish: Well, if that's the case so be it...
(11:01:29 PM) Northenglish: then we would have bigger problems on our hands.
(11:01:32 PM) vishwin60: uhh, no again
(11:01:34 PM) Rschen7754: but then it's pointless to have a newsletter
(11:01:41 PM) vishwin60: exactly
(11:01:46 PM) deepshuck: so don't have one
(11:01:54 PM) deepshuck: who needs one?
(11:02:16 PM) Northenglish: Okay, in this alternate universe where we only have enough to write every six months, yes it would be pointless.
(11:02:16 PM) vishwin60: we need it to keep ourselves informed
(11:02:20 PM) Rschen7754: one, to remind users about the project
(11:02:33 PM) Northenglish: My point is this, the newsletter isn't something to be worried about.
(11:02:38 PM) Rschen7754: b/c apparently users are too lazy to look at template:project u,s, roads
(11:02:44 PM) vishwin60: exactly
(11:02:44 PM) deepshuck: if that's all you need, just post every week "have you remembered to check [[WT:USRD]] recently?"
(11:02:53 PM) vishwin60: that's just tastless and tedious
(11:03:01 PM) Rschen7754: well thing is, many projs use newsletters
(11:03:09 PM) Northenglish: More tedious than worrying about a newsletter?
(11:03:21 PM) vishwin60: <@Rschen7754> well thing is, many projs use newsletters
(11:03:30 PM) vishwin60: agreed on that
(11:03:35 PM) deepshuck: many people eat babies!
(11:04:04 PM) Northenglish: Do they send it out as often as we do? Do they have the same number of contributors?
(11:04:18 PM) Rschen7754: the problem is... i feel like i'm the person who has to remind people to contribute, and if i can't do the newsletter one week, it gets done last minute
(11:04:21 PM) deepshuck: seriously, you're treating this like a [[cargo cult]] religion - "if we make newsletters like the other projects, we'll be cool like them"
(11:04:35 PM) Rschen7754: i've had to do other things for the last 2 issues and they got done last minute
(11:04:42 PM) Northenglish: Then don't do it last minute.
(11:04:46 PM) Northenglish: Wait till next week.
(11:04:47 PM) Rschen7754: i remember easter ed it got delivered a day late
(11:04:51 PM) vishwin60: yep
(11:04:59 PM) Rschen7754: well people go "where's my newsletter???"
(11:04:59 PM) vishwin60: on one issue I had to do most of it
(11:05:07 PM) vishwin60: and yes, exactly our point
(11:05:08 PM) Northenglish: do they really?
(11:05:18 PM) Northenglish: i honestly have a hard time believing that.
(11:05:20 PM) deepshuck: did anyone go "where's my newsletter???"?
(11:05:34 PM) Rschen7754: i think someone did
(11:05:38 PM) Rschen7754: i think it was JA10
(11:05:43 PM) Rschen7754: but im not sure
(11:05:50 PM) deepshuck: smack him
(11:05:51 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: wtf!
(11:05:51 PM) Northenglish: lol
(11:06:03 PM) deepshuck: if he wants one he can write it
(11:06:07 PM) Northenglish: i tried to warn you that he was in the room, just didn't get to it in time.
(11:06:09 PM) Rschen7754: ok i guess not
(11:06:40 PM) Northenglish: Here's my point, I'm in favor of the idea of newsletters... but not of you stressing over them.
(11:06:49 PM) Northenglish: Cut the frequency in half or something.
(11:07:09 PM) vishwin60: no
(11:07:26 PM) Northenglish: Fine, then stress over getting it out on a deadline, see what I care.
(11:07:30 PM) vishwin60: if you are interested in the 'letter, I suggest you write a section yourself
(11:07:39 PM) TwinsMetsFan: to once a month? yes, there'd be content, but that doesn't fix the editor problem
(11:07:45 PM) Rschen7754: i mean, signpost is more structured
(11:07:56 PM) vishwin60: yeah
(11:07:56 PM) Rschen7754: furthermore, lots of stuff would be outdated by end of month
(11:08:03 PM) vishwin60: mm-hmm
(11:09:09 PM) vishwin60: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Newsletter/Newsroom/Deadlines looks very good
(11:09:42 PM) Rschen7754: b/c the problem is, if we dont apply pressure
(11:09:45 PM) Rschen7754: nothing gets done
(11:09:48 PM) Rschen7754: like auditing a class
(11:10:12 PM) Northenglish: applying pressure on editors isn't going to get them to write a story for a newsletter
(11:10:20 PM) Northenglish: if anything it will make them less likely to
(11:10:26 PM) vishwin60: actually, it does help us out
(11:11:01 PM) Northenglish: Applying pressure?
(11:11:13 PM) vishwin60: yeah
(11:11:20 PM) vishwin60: the pressure is mixed in with motivation
(11:11:26 PM) Northenglish: That explains a lot.
(11:11:39 PM) deepshuck: "write a story or Rschen7754 will block you"
(11:11:46 PM) vishwin60: definately not...
(11:12:02 PM) Rschen7754: no not at all like that
(11:12:11 PM) vishwin60: that's abusing admin tools
(11:12:12 PM) Rschen7754: i'll be upset, but i wouldnt block
(11:12:21 PM) ***Northenglish thinks certain people have a hard time recognizing sarcasm.
(11:12:21 PM) Rschen7754: correct
(11:13:20 PM) Rschen7754: lets just keep it civil and move on, ok?
(11:13:29 PM) Northenglish: What kind of pressure are we talking about?
(11:13:50 PM) Rschen7754: just putting a deadline on the [page
(11:14:52 PM) Northenglish: Wait... so are you looking for an update from every state WP by every other Friday?
(11:14:58 PM) Rschen7754: ya
(11:15:20 PM) Rschen7754: just 1-2 sentences
(11:15:23 PM) Northenglish: Looking at the bottom section, that's going over real well so far.
(11:15:40 PM) Rschen7754: we havent publicized this system though.
(11:15:57 PM) Northenglish: And if they don't they get the "scarlet letter" scolding them for not turning in their homework on time?
(11:16:53 PM) Rschen7754: we just say they didnt submit a thing
(11:16:54 PM) Northenglish: "to provide accountability"
(11:17:12 PM) Rschen7754: so they dont go oh well screw the newsletter we wont submit anything
(11:17:26 PM) deepshuck: screw the newsletter
(11:17:50 PM) Northenglish: I'm not submitting anything.
(11:18:15 PM) Rschen7754: these are also on a signup basis.
(11:18:23 PM) Rschen7754: but it's just 2 sentences
(11:18:39 PM) Northenglish: Right but if no one signs up, you still whine about no one turning anything in, right?
(11:18:54 PM) Rschen7754: no, someone will pick up the extra states
(11:19:09 PM) Northenglish: So basically... it's the same system you have now.
(11:19:24 PM) Rschen7754: and if somebody goes on vacation or soemthing if they just let us know, then we'll be ok with it
(11:19:27 PM) Northenglish: If no one writes anything, you'll rush to get it out at the last minute.
(11:19:44 PM) Rschen7754: yes, but we wont be very happy with the people who slacked off
(11:19:59 PM) vishwin60: mm-hmm
(11:20:03 PM) deepshuck: I'm sure they'll care
(11:20:22 PM) Rschen7754: what if we said... you need to submit a update for your project to be considered active
(11:20:26 PM) Rschen7754: otheriwse it will be demoted?
(11:20:32 PM) deepshuck: hahaha
(11:20:36 PM) Northenglish: Then I'd say go fuck yourself.
(11:20:46 PM) Rschen7754: it is extremely said when somebody cannot write 2 sentences
(11:21:03 PM) #wikipedia-en-roads-us: mode (+m ) by vishwin60
(11:21:13 PM) Northenglish: Oh joy, I'm about to get banned.
(11:21:30 PM) Northenglish: Well, you guys have a nice time then.
(11:21:34 PM) Rschen7754: just dont say what you did with the f word and you'll be fine
(11:21:41 PM) vishwin60: yeah
(11:21:44 PM) Northenglish: I thought NPA didn't apply here.
(11:21:55 PM) Northenglish: Last time I tried to invoke it I got banned.
(11:22:04 PM) Rschen7754: you're saying that was a personal attack?
(11:22:05 PM) Northenglish: I'm just so confused...
(11:22:07 PM) TwinsMetsFan: generally, there's no profanity in a meeting that's publically logged
(11:22:15 PM) vishwin60: we should note that
(11:22:30 PM) Rschen7754: we've just been lax about enforcing that
(11:22:44 PM) Rschen7754: NPA or not, thats just rude
(11:23:02 PM) vishwin60: mm-hmm
(11:23:08 PM) Northenglish: Well, whatever, good luck trying to demote more wikiprojects just cuz they don't give a damn about your newsletter.
(11:23:16 PM) Northenglish left the room (quit: "Chatzilla 0.9.77 [Firefox 1.5.0.11/2007031202]").
(11:23:27 PM) Rschen7754: it's just 2 sentences
(11:23:32 PM) Rschen7754: good grief
(11:23:34 PM) vishwin60: oh, boy
(11:23:40 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: wats the big deal?
(11:24:05 PM) #wikipedia-en-roads-us: mode (-m ) by vishwin60
(11:24:27 PM) Polaron: threatening demotion for lack of updates in a newsletter is never a good thing
(11:24:37 PM) vishwin60: it's sarcasm, again
(11:24:54 PM) vishwin60: but still, faulty logic
(11:25:01 PM) Rschen7754: it shows activity
(11:25:08 PM) Rschen7754: it';s 4 sentences a month
(11:25:24 PM) Rschen7754: you probably could make it 3 or 2
(11:25:31 PM) deepshuck: hahaha good thing this is being logged
(11:25:44 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: im da worst writer here and i could it
(11:25:46 PM) Rschen7754: maybe i shouldnt have suggested that
(11:25:57 PM) vishwin60: you're not the worst writer here
(11:26:04 PM) vishwin60: IPs are much worse
(11:26:16 PM) Rschen7754: but what frustrates me is that a lot of people jsut are encompassed in their own state hwy WP and dont care about USRD
(11:26:17 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: ok
(11:26:24 PM) vishwin60: yep
(11:26:41 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: true, i dont always edit PASH articles
(11:26:47 PM) vishwin60: that's good
(11:27:01 PM) vishwin60: yeah, when I first started, I was only thinking PASH
(11:27:23 PM) vishwin60: but this is getting way off topic
(11:27:27 PM) Rschen7754: when i started, the only proj was CASH :|
(11:27:30 PM) JohnnyAlbert10: me too, i loved PA highways and i wanna fix every article
(11:27:36 PM) Rschen7754: it is
(11:27:49 PM) Rschen7754: re the newsletter
(11:27:49 PM) Rschen7754: it's 4 dang sentences
(11:27:53 PM) Rschen7754: a month
(11:28:04 PM) vishwin60: that it?
(11:28:11 PM) vishwin60: if it is...
(11:28:17 PM) Rschen7754: the projects probably wont be demoted, but they deserve to be if they cant write 4 dang sentences a month
(11:28:20 PM) Rschen7754: 2 each issue
(11:28:24 PM) vishwin60: ok
(11:28:30 PM) Rschen7754: although a long 1 might work
(11:28:37 PM) vishwin60: hmm
(11:28:48 PM) vishwin60: it's food for thought
(11:28:52 PM) vishwin60: but anyway...
(11:29:00 PM) Rschen7754: if somebody cant do that, thats just sad
(11:29:11 PM) vishwin60: The second IRC meeting of USRD has officially concluded. Thanks for coming, everyone!
