User talk:Fredddie/Archives/2014

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fredddie. 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.

I-26 map

The map for Interstate 26 in North Carolina you recently added is actually incorrect, there is a gap between US 19/US 23A to I-40. Just thought I point that out. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought something didn't look right. I used the KML that was provided, which shows the route "complete". If the KML is redone with either just the two segments or with the proposed route marked with a dashed line, I will happily remake the map. Pinging Mr. Matté so he may see this. –Fredddie™ 04:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

KML updated. —Mr. Matté (^Talk/_Contrib) 12:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A thanks and a question

Thanks once more for the map for ON 71! I was wondering where you got the shapefile of the outline for Lake of the Woods? I couldn't find anything online. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Here. –Fredddie™ 05:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Missouri, redux

Also, grabbing mileage from FlexMap (Trailway ID 4986): It seems the logmiles start at 0 on the northern border not the southern border... Am I nuts, or...? Cause in streetview the mileposts work as I expected. --AdmrBoltz 16:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You want 4984 as it shows MP 0.000 in Jackson County (KC). FlexMap shows both N/E and S/W alignments for all highways. –Fredddie™ 18:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahh... K. --AdmrBoltz 18:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I-70

So we were talking about I-35 in MO connecting to KS Turnpike to link MI to the turnpike, but how does it connect? I don't see a connection. I have {{MOint}}-ified the RJL now. --AdmrBoltz 14:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hrm. Barring getting I-70 MO to FA, I-670 might be faster and cheaper. –Fredddie™ 18:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

670 doesn't connect either... --AdmrBoltz 18:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I-70 KS and MO it is then! –Fredddie™ 18:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Well, I'll start plugging away on 35MO. (@Imzadi1979: FYI based on our conversation the other night). --AdmrBoltz 18:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

35 IA, 35 MO and I-435 will connect us to the Turnpike, avoiding 70 KS. --AdmrBoltz 02:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC) --AdmrBoltz 02:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Imz made a good point, we will need to do 70KS anyways for a 70FT... --AdmrBoltz 02:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming that conversation took place on IRC. I grew tired of talking about NASCAR and ArbCom so I no longer hang out there. –Fredddie™ 03:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In all fairness though, by the time you told us that it bothered you (through a cryptic talk page post), you were already halfway out the door. --Rschen7754 05:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Saying it wouldn't have stopped it; especially the NASCAR bullshit. Anyway, I hope you can all appreciate how much meatspace time I have now. It's great. –Fredddie™ 13:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking we'll need I-70 KS to connect with I-70 CO... isn't the "dream" to get all of the FAs on the map linked? If so, we're going to need to connect KS TPK through CO, UT, NV, AZ to CA somehow... Imzadi 1979 → 07:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Have we ever put together a listing, using the fancy FTC template, of what we would need to get an I-70 FT? Might be good to add to WP:USRD/PLAN –Fredddie™ 18:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do in a moment. --AdmrBoltz 18:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC) See Wikipedia:USRD/FT --AdmrBoltz 18:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Winter 2013

Volume 7, Issue 1 • Winter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features 2013 in review The Moon is rising: our Lua progress so far Looking ahead to 2014 The Maple Syrup Report	State and national updates Project news in brief Task force reports for CA, GA, MI, OH, PA, UT, WA, and WV
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

List of Montana numbered highways

fixed some script errors on this page. feel free to fix them a different way if I did not do it correctly. Frietjes (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(TPS) {{routelist row}} did not know how to handle types US 1926 or US 1961. 26 has been corrected, and we're working on 61. --AdmrBoltz 20:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not right. It did work before. Why did it change and why wasn't it announced? –Fredddie™ 22:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Dunno. Its fixed now. Must have been during the Luaification. --AdmrBoltz 22:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The huge data page got split into separate pages. --Rschen7754 22:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Peña Boulevard map

Its not technically a USRD article, so I can't request it on WP:USRD/MTF/R, but I was wondering if I could get a map for this article. There is a KML file attached. --AdmrBoltz 22:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Submit it to MTF/R anyway. Since my laptop can't connect to the Internet; I'm not doing any maps for the time being. Sorry. –Fredddie™ 00:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

How helpful of your laptop :p. Can do. --AdmrBoltz 00:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AWB fiasco

Sorry about that, as I must have clicked it while cleaning up some errant project tags. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2003 Iowa highway jurisdictional transfer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Twin Lakes State Park and Lewis and Clark State Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

{{jct}} missing stuff

About the {{jct}} template, on the Provincial road N34 (Netherlands) article some N images/html-code of the roads doesn't show up. Could you fix this, tell me how to fix it, or say it can't be fixed, thank you. Also the 'R' road type is missing for the Netherlands. It's a so called "Recreatieve weg" or in english a recreational road. Thewombatguru (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah good. The N images do not show up because they do not exist. Not a problem, though, because I wanted to ask you if the image category on Commons had all the right numbers. I am willing to make a new set of SVG images so they're in the same style. Notice how all of the A images are similar while the Ns are all different. Just let me know what numbers are needed and I can get started. –Fredddie™ 23:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all thanks for adding the 'R' road-type. I don't have a full list of which images don't exist, but I do know that these ones are missing:

• N378
• N391
• N376
• N854
• N382
• N377
• N340
• N341

Because I don't have a full list I will only see which ones are missing once I make new articles of the 'N' roads, so in case it's not very hard to do this you could explain it to me. Thewombatguru (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Interstate Highways in Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I-280 marker images

Hi Fredddie. Sorry to bother you. Just checking with you on your thought on Template talk:Infobox road#I-280 marker images based on my reply. Thanks. Z22 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Route markers

Hi! Thank you for showing me the project page. Of course, I'll do rest of the missing signs. Miko101 21:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fredddie! I've made some of the missing signs, but unfortunately I cannot upload them to commons because commons upload wizard blocks the files because it says I'm trying to "overwrite existing files" which I'm not doing - the files I'm trying to upload only have identical name to the raster ones.

Miko101 20:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I like using commons:Commonist for mass uploads like this. If you get any error messages, you will be asked if you'd like to override. –Fredddie™ 20:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Great! So I'll upload using Commonist. Thanks for the tip! :-) Miko101 13:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Renaming A motorways in The Netherlands to Rijksweg

Hello,

Could I request a move of the A motorways in the Netherlands to Rijksweg? So it would be Rijksweg 50 instead of A50 motorway (Netherlands). Thewombatguru (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. Since we'd be moving a whole set of articles, a formal move request should be filled out. –Fredddie™ 23:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I inserted a requested move template on Talk:A1_motorway_(Netherlands), I don't know if I did it as it is supposed to be done. Thewombatguru (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A few more questions

Hi, I have a few more questions.

1. On a lot of german road articles like Bundesautobahn 1 the junction list is in the info box, this is against the MoS, right?
2. When an article contains the big three (History, route description and junction list) but has no reference or too few, should it be rated Start or C? I've rated them Start in the past.
3. Why is the assessment for the subproject US roads not also in the assessment of the mainproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment ?
4. On this page, Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Planning it says in the ToDo list, add KML files, but what are KML files?

Sorry for asking so many questions but I'd really like to understand this project better. Thewombatguru (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's really no problem! I'll try to answer your questions in order.

1. That's how a lot of USRD articles are (see Interstate 80 in Iowa), so I'm pretty sure it's not in the MoS
2. Generally C, but if once section is particularly bad, feel free to downgrade to a Start.
3. That's a good question and I don't have an answer for that. Might not be a bad idea to start a discussion at WT:HWY.
4. KML files use coordinates to draw lines, which can be plotted onto Google Maps or Bing Maps. Compare the file page to the Google Map output.

Hope that helps. –Fredddie™ 22:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's reply in order too.

1. I meant exit list sorry, in Bundesautobahn 1 the entire exit list is in the infobox, not only the major junctions.
2. Ok, I will rate it C in the future.
3. I will, tomorrow, it's 1 am here.
4. I will look into that because that seems like something that improves an article a lot.

Thanks for answering, only the first one remains. Thewombatguru (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

USRD figured out fairly early on that having all of the junctions in the infobox is a bad idea. That's why you'll see a comment <!-- Limit 10 junctions in infobox --> in some USRD infoboxes reminding some people to keep it brief. –Fredddie™ 23:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Infoboxes should be a summary of the article, not a replacement for part of it. There are many discussions in places that some infoboxes are too long, and yes, USRD many years ago formulated a guideline to keep to 10 junctions based on this feedback. I believe the German Wikipedia only puts an exit (or junction, same difference) list in their infoboxes, and that practice was imported here. MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose of an infobox says, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
2. Agreed, it's a bit of a judgement call. For example, if the history section is only a few sentences on a roadway where you'd expect paragraphs of developments, then I'd discount the existence of the section in making the assessment.
3. I added a brief standard on the Big Three to WP:HWY/A, which is what I've been using to do the assessments of new articles I find through User:AlexNewArtBot/HighwaysSearchResult‎.
4. As for KMLs, yes, we've found they're much more valuable than single coordinates. In fact, they're required of any article that passes WP:HWY/ACR now. Imzadi 1979 → 00:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying you both. Thewombatguru (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I tried to make a KML file, did I do it correctly or is there something wrong with it, it's on this page User:Thewombatguru/KML. Thewombatguru (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That looks right. Typically we use a thick red line for the road in question; that way it gives good contrast on either the map or satellite layers. –Fredddie™ 22:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok good to know, is there a list of page that really need a KML file or do I simply have to make KML files for all pages. Thewombatguru (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:U.S. road articles needing KML is the master list for the US. I don't know if there is a similar list for WP:HWY. @Imzadi1979:? –Fredddie™ 22:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, when a road connects point A and point B, is there a specific way of determining whether it starts in point A or point B? Thewombatguru (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In the US, we have the benefit of knowing that 99% of roads are inventoried from west to east or from south to north. As for Europe, I have no idea where to begin. I suppose you could ask the Department/Ministry of Transport and see if they can provide route logs. This is an example of a good route log. It lists the cumulative distance at each point, each intersecting road, what cities the road enters, and other identifying features. Some other logs, like the one I use in Iowa also include traffic figures. –Fredddie™ 23:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll look into that. Thewombatguru (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Currently, the HWY banner does not track the presence or lack of a KML file, but I think the AURD and CARD banners do. Such coding could probably be added relatively easily in the near future if there's a desire to do so. Imzadi 1979 → 00:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment of WikiProject Highway

Hello,

I just assessed 191 pages and realized that I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do so, could you check a few of them to see if I did good so I can continue or not? Thewombatguru (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I took a random sample of articles you assessed. I don't see anything wrong with what you have done. If you need some help with importance assessments, this is typically what we use in the States:

Top - Highway systems, very important roads

High - motorways or freeways

Mid - Provincial/state highways

Low - local roads

Hope this helps. –Fredddie™ 20:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll assess the importance too from now on. Thewombatguru (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Or no, I'll maybe do that later on. Thewombatguru (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

And if I understood you correctly that means that this article would be High importance, Autovía_A-44, right? Thewombatguru (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. –Fredddie™ 21:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I just assessed 1315 pages for WikiProject Highway but I have a question about the remaining articles. There are a few talk pages that are talk pages of redirects. What should be done with those? Thewombatguru (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Some people like to tag them with |class=redirect and some like to leave them be. I have no opinion either way. –Fredddie™ 16:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

But why should a redirect have a talk page, most of them only have that project banner so that makes them absolutely useless. Thewombatguru (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question and a good argument for leaving them as redlinks. If you want to leave them, I won't argue. –Fredddie™ 22:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Another question about quality assessing, for example this page, should this be assessed with normal classes or with the list class? It does contain a list but there's also some information about the roads in general, China National Highways, China National Highways of Beijing. Thewombatguru (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It concerns all the remaining unassessed articles in Category:Unassessed Highways articles.Thewombatguru (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger and Split Pages Problems with Interstate 540 (Arkansas) and Arkansas Highway 549

I have to add Missing information templates to both those articles as you totally wiped out the history sections of both highways. I-540 is missing info on the section that is used to run on into NW Arkansas that got renumbered to I-49 and on the other page on AR-549 you are missing all information of the previous incarnation of the highway in SW Arkansas. Can you fix those articles to show info of those routes as it will appear on highway maps for awhile yet until the map publishers change the route to the proper numbers on said maps. Thank You Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 22:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll do it, but I have to ask you to take a deep breath. All that needs to be done is to summarize what I moved to I-49. With all the energy spent on sounding the alarms and adding missing info templates, it could have been done by now. –Fredddie™ 22:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome, I enjoyed the cookies. I hope I am able to help such an amazing, free encyclopedia so that everyone can have free information on any subject. Thanks again - Sim5335 (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Missouri Highway 64

Hello Freddie

I am a frequent driver to Missouri Highway 64.....I was curious recently as to if Missouri 64 ended or ran along with Missouri Highway 254....upon my research for this answer, I noticed an error.....Missouri 64 does Not end at Missouri Highway 5 in Lebanon, but instead merges with Missouri 5 and later with Missouri Highway 32 going eastbound through Lebanon and actually ends at Interstate 44....Missouri Highways 32 & 5 continue beyond 1-44 but Missouri 64 ends at I-44 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B126:6EC1:BD15:503F:E699:B2BF (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will look at the MoDOT route logs when I have time later today. –Fredddie™ 17:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Vintage Louisiana shield

What would be the best way to recreate a shield that I have in my own collection, but to make it into a template on Wikipedia? Collection just means that I have it hanging on my wall... it's a Louisiana shield that was used between the diamond pelican-style shields and the green-and-white shields. I'm not that great of a tracer, so what should I do? The sign is located at the URL here. Thanks! 'Mcdonaat → 22:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of U.S. Highways in Iowa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I-129 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2014

Volume 7, Issue 2 • Spring 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Under a moonlit (and lightning-quick) sky: Lua, , and what's next The new and improved HWY Cup Making shields 101 The Maple Syrup Report	State and national updates Project news in brief Five years ago... A chat with our newest USRD members
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of Imzadi1979

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interstate 94 in Minnesota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Croix River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Help

I just came upon you edit at U.S.Route 66, I've always use what you call "postal codes" (because they are :P ) I've come up empty on the MOS guideline search on this subject, If you don't mind could you please link me to it. Thanx in advance, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I just notice this could be a project guideline. Mlpearc (open channel)

As far as I know, there is no guideline, so it's a matter of personal preference. As far as I'm concerned, postal abbreviations are fine for template coding, but in prose we should be using traditional abbreviations. –Fredddie™ 23:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Conversely, the 16th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style says to use the two-letter abbreviations. The Post Office standardized on the two-letter abbreviations in the early 1960s, and these abbreviations have been standardized internationally by the ISO. In prose, we should be spelling out the state names and not abbreviating them, but in infoboxes or tables, we should be using the two-letter codes per CMOS and other style guides. Imzadi 1979 → 02:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Except we are not bound to the rules of CMOS. –Fredddie™ 02:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Where our MOS has no rules, we look to the other style manuals for guidance though. CMOS is considered pretty much the most authoritative style guide for American English formatting. Imzadi 1979 → 02:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Interstate Highways in New Jersey, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hamilton Township, New Jersey and Lawrence Township, New Jersey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited State highways in New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PA 32. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Interstate Highways in Michigan

Since you commented on the A(L)CR for the list, you may wish to comment on the current FLC. Imzadi 1979 → 08:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

KY 1747

Thank you very much for the new KY 1747 map. There is one minor quibble, though: The underlying map is out of date. Louisville merged with Jefferson County in 2003. So, the map shows Louisville's "urban services district" rather than the city as a whole. It's not any major priority to update the map again, but I just wanted to bring this to your attention. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads up. –Fredddie™ 16:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

New Hampshire Highway Discussion

Hello. I would like more editors to join or continue the discussion about the New Hampshire Highway System. Only one other editor is active, and we both agreed to let other editors to make the decisions. Thank you! Aiden2121 (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox road

Hi, I think you are the right person to contact here. Apparently some of the recent changes made on Template:Infobox road broke the layout in some of the articles such as State Route 313 (New York–Vermont). The penultimate version of Rhode Island Route 78 (diff) and State Route 74 (New York–Vermont) (diff) also had this error, but I corrected it by requiring that all the browse items be in one line. I think this edit is the culprit. I wonder if you know what went wrong. I think it has something to do with where the HTML table ends in the infobox when there are more than one Template:Infobox road/browselinks/USA used in the browse section. Chinissai (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually have no idea why it did that since I'm only good at parserfunctions. @Happy5214: can you explain why this is happening? –Fredddie™ 22:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've known about this issue since the module was deployed. Honestly, I think this is a MediaWiki parser bug. The exact same code works perfectly fine in Special:ExpandTemplates. The parser output in the articles doesn't even make any syntactical sense. From what I can tell, the Vermont browse box is in a separate top-level table row. Therefore, it is not being sized by the cell that holds the rest of the browse info. As I said, the error cannot be reproduced in the special page I linked. Why that would be so much different than the actual output is beyond me. But I don't think this is an issue with the Lua code. -happy5214 11:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(moving the source location of the browselink template does not change where it actually is displayed) Note that the last two boxes are actually real boxes when things are formatted properly; the first two are not. Does this help with debugging, or do they further illustrate the parser bug? Chinissai (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This might not be a bug in the strictest sense of the word, but the results are definitely unexpected. All of your listed testcases with the infobox work reasonably well with Special:ExpandTemplates. I'm not a parser expert, but the striking disconnect between the ExpandTemplates output and the actual output is certainly an issue. Maybe WP:VPT has an answer? FWIW, I think the browselinks templates might need to be in a separate parameter. -happy5214 10:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Summer 2014

Volume 7, Issue 3 • Summer 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features The U.S. Roads Portal: A great gateway to the project HWY Cup a success in improving the articles of WikiProject Highways	State and national updates None submitted
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979, 21:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Just wanted to give you a for your work on Wiki Project U.S. Roads and the speedy work you do at the Shields task force Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

ACR

I think there was some significant miscommunication in my last post, so let me try to clarify.

Suspension occurs only when the nominator is unable or unwilling to reply to comments within a reasonable timeframe, generally 1 month. If a nomination goes stale because nobody comments on it, it does not have to be suspended, and generally should not be so that it has a better chance of being reviewed.

I was planning on reviewing that particular article, but unfortunately looking at the dates that review was open, it seems that much of that timeframe was when I was inactive this spring. Besides that, I was also unable to try and push other nominations through ACR so that this one could eventually be reviewed, and the entirety of ACR stalled. Unfortunately, that tends to happen at ACR; CA 57 took 11 months to get through (though a lot of that was my own fault). The other concern that I had was that the unaddressed concerns from the first review did not appear to have been addressed.

I think by now you know me as a pretty straightforward guy, and I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. It was never intended to be anything personal, just trying to do what I think is best for the project. If you want, I can definitely review I-470 MO, though of course I can't give a guarantee of when I can get to it, due to my erratic activity patterns lately. --Rschen7754 05:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I figured as much. I buried the thread so I wouldn't say something that I might regret later. A small change in my lifestyle has left my temper a little shorter than it used to be. I was just frustrated that nobody besides yourself bothered to look at it. –Fredddie™ 01:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Module:Road Data

Hi Freddie, I saw that you did a lot of the work at Module:Road data/strings. I was going through some of the Trans Canada Highway shields yesterday, and saw that the module links to a lot of non-standard shields. These were created before the official TCH shields entered public domain (which was about 2010). Consequently, now we have free TCH shields (mostly hosted on Commons) available for all provinces except Newfoundland and Labrador. I was hoping you could change the module to use the proper TCH shields for all the provinces except for Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador (Ontario and Quebec are special cases, and NL doesn't have a shield yet). Provinces that already use the proper shield are British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (although the THC parameter doesn't work, the Hwy one does). Provinces that link to the old shield are Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. I have them all laid out on the page User:Kelapstick/Trans-Canada Highway. Much thanks, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks for doing the heavy lifting. For Ontario and Quebec, it is possible for Jct to display two shields for one parameter (see AA Hwy (KY 9) {{Jct|state=KY|AA|9}}), so that's no trouble. I'll get this done later today. –Fredddie™ 13:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I am just not sure what to do, I have brought it up at the Canadian Wikipedians Notice Board but I think the Canadian Road Project should have some input as well. For now I would just suggest leaving Ontario and Quebec as-is for now, until there is some further input. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Floydian: do you have any thoughts? –Fredddie™ 20:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd have normally pinged him about this first, but his userpage says he is moving and without internet for a while. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing all that, much appreciated. I went through and fixed the issues with the Quebec articles, however there are some that have more complicated templates that link multiple roads, I was unable to fix them. I'd suggest waiting until Floydian gets back before reviewing the Ontario roads, as I would like to have his input on it before making any changes.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I got the rest of Quebec cleaned up. I agree about waiting for Floydian to come back before we tackle Ontario. –Fredddie™ 20:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Trans-Canada shields, as long as its not attached to the highway numbers as it is with the infobox, it should be good. Issue being that most of the highways labelled Trans-Canada in Ontario, except 17, 417, 71, 69 and 129, only carry that moniker for part of their length. Some junctions with Highway 7 are along the Trans-Canada portion but many are not. As long as that can be done, I trust you guys have the right idea where to go. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Should be able to, same way that A-15 and A-15 (TCH) works with either or. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Floydian: Yes, Kelapstick demonstrated how it would be done. –Fredddie™ 23:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kelapstick: would you be willing to help me fix the last 90 or so articles? –Fredddie™ 03:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: Category:Jct template errors may not have all the articles listed because another editor reverted what I had done previously. –Fredddie™ 03:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to fix them or not? --NE2 03:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

When they show up in the category, I will. It took a day for the category to fill before, and on my end there is only one page listed. If you're going to revert me again, then I suggest you revert all the changes to Quebec articles that kelapstick and I have made this month as well. –Fredddie™ 03:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes Fredddie, I can pick away at some of them today. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We are down to 51 now, however I still don't know how to fix the multiple junction templates. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think should do it. --Rschen7754 14:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that part Rschen7754, however in templates where there are multiple highways is where I have the issue, such as on Quebec Route 117.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Fredddie/Archives. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

List of state routes in Tennessee

Can the first column be right-aligned so the difference between dual and primary/secondary doesn't break up the flow? --NE2 23:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not out of the box it can't. @Scott5114 and Happy5214: can we make this happen? (Regarding {{Routelist row}})–Fredddie™ 23:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, I found a workaround that keeps the images and text in line. –Fredddie™ 02:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does the right-alignment have to do with the interim solution? -happy5214 09:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing. Right-alignment was mainly to keep the text in line. –Fredddie™ 15:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer if we kept using this interim solution. I think it's a lot clearer having the shields in two "columns" and only displaying the one that applies. A switch to right-align the first column probably wouldn't be useful anywhere else. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The question at hand

When it stops being a fun hobby and starts feeling like a job that's no fun, then it's time to walk away. I'm really close. –Fredddie™ 02:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Fourth Quarter 2014

Volume 7, Issue 4 • Fourth Quarter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Maple Syrup Report Portal selected articles and pictures	Features The U.S. Roads Project Is Turning 10! 2014: The Year in Review Setting the bar for 2015	State and national updates CA, DE, MD, MI, MS, MP, OR Project news
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 10:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Convert#Fractional length units

Convert	Output	Proposed output
{{convert|1+1/4|mi|m|spell=in}}	one and a quarter miles (2,000 m)	one one quarter-mile (2000 m)
{{convert|3+1/4|mi|spell=in}}	three and a quarter miles (5.2 km)	three three quarter-miles (5.2 km)
{{convert|1+1/2|mi|m|spell=in}}	one and a half miles (2,400 m)	one one half-mile (2400 m)

Peter Horn User talk 03:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Tweaked. Peter Horn User talk 03:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 03:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Tweaked again. Peter Horn User talk 03:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)