Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Nebraska/Archive 1

This page was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2011. The result of the discussion was Closed/Keep.

Userbox

This project's userbox should be a subpage of this project page, not a template per WP:UM. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about spurs and links?

Do we do one big spurs and links article or do we do one for each and every one? 90% of them (at least) don't have much of a description other than they are a spur to city X from Highway Y. It would seem easier to just do a large graphic article than one on each of the ones in the highway system. DandyDan2007 05:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see spur and link routes getting their own articles - If I'm correct (I'm not too familiar with Nebraska) they're Nebraska's version of "county routes" so to speak. Most county highways should not get their own article depending on the number of routes. --• master_son^{Lets talk} 05:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are a part of the state highway system. A link describing them is at http://www.dm.net/~chris-g/ne-spur.html . I would personally compare them to Missouri's supplemental routes, only not so extensive. DandyDan2007 06:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Unless you have enough detail on each route, an article for each route is overkill. --• master_son^{Lets talk} 15:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about discontinuous routes?

Should they get 1 infobox for each section or 1 for the whole route? DandyDan2007 05:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

probably one article - though i think that can be negotiable. --• master_son^{Lets talk} 05:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Highway 2

I thought it was best to do each section of Highway 2 with an infobox for each section. Not sure if that was the best idea, as I had nothing to go on as a basis to decide whether that was a good idea. But it seemed better than one big infobox for a highway with 2 distinct sections. I hate to imagine how much space goes to infoboxes on the three-part (or is it 4 part?) Highway 66. DandyDan2007 12:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets keep it to 1 infobox per article - seperate the route by section in the junction list by a <hr> with the termini being the farthest left to farthest right (assume looking north or west ;) ). Then use the article itself to state where the intermediate termini are (I assume that most of it was supplanted by a US route or I-80?) • master_son^{Lets talk} 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox question

Since there is no NE 30, as there is a US 30, should I fix up the infoboxes such that if the next route is a US route? Currently, on the Nebraska Highway 31 page, the previous route is Nebraska Highway 29 and really, it should be US 30. DandyDan2007 21:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:USRD/INNA, the previous route for NE 31 should be US 30. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nebraska Spur, Link and Recreation Highways article

I created this article, but I'm now convinced, at least in my mind, that it should all be merged into the List of Nebraska numbered highways article. Is there anything at all to make it worth keeping as a separate article? After all, once I get around to finishing it, it will largely be a list of highways, which can be on the regular list article. DandyDan2007 06:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates

All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master son^{T - C} 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Highways

I finally had enough patience to deal with PDF files on my computer, and linked up with the NDOR site, which refers to all U.S. Routes as U.S. Highways, so I changed all references to U.S. Route x to U.S. Highway x in all Nebraska Highway articles and will in all future articles. DandyDan2007 07:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Connecting Link and Spur highways

Several articles exist for these, but all they really say is either "This is a spur road into city X" or "This is a link road connecting Highway Y with Highway Z". While I think the system is notable, the individual roads are probably not and can probably be covered in the List of Nebraska Connecting Link, Spur, and Recreation Highways article. My question is what to do about the original articles. (This is also posted on WT:USRD/NT) DandyDan2007 (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References for length parameters

This is something I noticed when going from page to page adding to them and cleaning them up. On the page for US 26, the length of the highway is referenced by this site. Looking through it, this is the official NDOR data. As such, shouldn't this information be used to determine the actual length of each highway, and each page updated as necessary? I'm sorry if someone has already brought this up in the past, but it just occurred to me right now to ask. Thanks. :) --Dbm11085 (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the early articles I started used Chris Geelhart's roadgeek site for the mileage citation, but after I was able to access the NDOR site for the first time (thanks to a more operational computer), I've used that. It was something I was going to get around to at some point, but I let myself get distracted easily on here, plus I don't generally have a lot of time to dedicate to Wikipedia. I sometimes wonder if I'm the only one doing Nebraska highway articles. Feel free to update as necessary. DandyDan2007 (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. I wish I knew of this site before I started updating the highway pages. Guess I have to start from NE 1 again, lol. I decided to come help this project along since I did all I could for the New Jersey project for the time being. Don't feel too alone now! --Dbm11085 (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:27, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rs chen 7754 01:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]