User talk:NE2/Archive 16

WP:RS / UP mainline?

Cool, thats good news for Toll Road News.

Question, the UP (former WP) rail through Wendover, UT/West Wendover, NV parallel to Wendover Airport and Utah State Route 58 is UP mainline, no? --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 06:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's one of two UP mainlines west from Utah. That part of the ex-WP is the Shafter Subdivision. --NE2 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do I refer to [1] as the Shafter Subdivision of the Union Pacific Railroad? --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 06:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I'd probably write "Shafter Subdivision of the Union Pacific Railroad (ex-WP)". --NE2 07:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Artery revisions

Please take time to review some non-trivial additions and revisions I have made to the Central Artery article. You are receiving this message because you have made substantial contributions to the article and/or the Massachusetts State Highways Project. I have posted a draft article at Talk:Central_Artery/Draft_2008-08-11. I explain the revisions and add a request for comments at the bottom of that page. Please comment there. Thanks - Sswonk (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to save my final edit, it is there now. Sswonk (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just noticed this indef block like three minutes ago when I came back to my computer. Thanks for your request to unblock me. I really owe you one. (And I'm sorry that I acted like a snob back at WT:CASH; I'll research more before I make changes and I won't guess despite what I said there at that talk page.) Again, thanks for looking into my situation. --Splat5572 (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Bernardino River

I made a stub for San Bernardino River with information on the river by that name in Mexico. Could you please take a look at the current version of the article, and remove the prod if you wish?

I found a reference to U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: San Bernardino Wash at http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic , but that's probably something different. --Eastmain (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the prod yourself. I'll do so. --NE2 06:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing properties of Category:Historic Columbia River Highway

I removed the Category:National Historic Landmarks in Oregon from the Redirects that represent CPs of the Historic Columbia River Highway because Category:National Historic Landmarks in Oregon is a parent of Category:Historic Columbia River Highway so they don't need to be there individually.--Appraiser (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garvey Avenue

Is Garvey Avenue and San Bern related in any ways. I thought US 60/70 is once placed on Garvey Avenue when the San Bern. Freeway was in middle of construction in the 1950s. Which date was San Bern Frwy accomplished?Is it 1954 or 1960? Was US 99 also once used on Garvey Avenue, I know it was once used on Golden State Freeway. And also in West Covina I learnt Garvey Avenue was a almost divide freeway stuff.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. --NE2 18:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

You're planning to become an admin in order to edit some page protected USRD templates? May I help nominate you in your RfA? --Splat5572 (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I don't think that would get me off to a good start... --NE2 22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you take what you can get. If it helps I would definitely co-nominate you as well; if you didn't deal with roads I'd think you were an admin already - C L — 22:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-710 and Pasadena

I still hadn't understnad the article well enough. Aren't we still bickering about the I-710 extension. I did check up some sources, they did talk about widening the I-710 Freeway to save congestions. I thgouht the I-710 extension may not ever become successful, but I don't see any source saying it that's why I never wrote it on article, because I know the information is all deepnding on source we have.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USPL

Why add the link parameter when you can just use {{USStat}}?—Markles 01:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - you're right. Why are there two separate templates? --NE2 01:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that there are two types of citations - but wouldn't it make sense to give both? 10 Stat. 8 is ambiguous, and could mean Pub. L. 32–44 or Pub. L. 32–45. --NE2 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess {{USStatute}} does that; it seems like that one should always be used. --NE2 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you see, they aren't always synonymous. Read the introduction to List of United States federal legislation for a better explanation. Complete information would be used with {{USStatute}}. For example, the PL number is know almost immediately after enactment, but the Stat. # takes weeks or even months for the GPO to determine. Also, as you state, there can be more than one PL on a Stat page. A century ago, they didn't use PL, they used Chapters. So, to conclude, it's helpful to provide as many links as possible. However, I avoid using {{USBill}} once the PL and Stat. cites are known. Hope this helps.—Markles 02:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Becks, Utah

OK, I am fine with how it is now, but if you could leave a note on the pages ACR, that would be great. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Newlines

Apologies. Having said that, though, I categorize several hundred templates a month. Occasionally, that is going to happen. I have tried every method of adding noincludes. None is perfect. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highway history

What's the difference between when a route is signed as a state highway and when a number is signed?--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 03:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By State highway in 1931; numbered in 1964 from SR 57 (CA) infobox. I hope this clarifies becaause I'm not a historian.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was taken from infobox.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 03:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A state highway is a highway maintained by the state. --NE2 03:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SR 57

Are you sure SR 57 is first signed (but differently number) in 1931? 1933 Los Angeles-Orange County map shows in 1933, the SR 57 hasn't even exist yet. I know SR 57 used to be Diamond Bar Blvd.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 02:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it was signed in 1931? --NE2 03:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2]--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 03:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it was signed in 1931? --NE2 03:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

history=State highway in 1931; numbered in 1964-That's whatyou wrote on infobox.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 03:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Who said it was signed in 1931? --NE2 03:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood it. I still don't understand what "State highway in 1931" means. Becuase SR 57 used to be Diamond Bar Blvd. and I've never hear it was once signed as another number.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 03:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means that in 1931, the road became a state highway - in other words the state began maintaining it. --NE2 04:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 28 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Atlantic and Pacific Railroad, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Rail stations by company

Re: NYSR tagging

You are removing the USRD tag from articles which are within the scope of USRD. Please stop. --NE2 19:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, NSYR is no longer under the scope of USRD. They made the decision to separate from USRD, ergo they are no longer under our scope. As such, I'm only completing the separation they asked for. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... no. They don't determine our scope. --NE2 19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in your opinion. To us, and everyone else at USRD, NY's out of the scope of USRD and wants no relation excepting a few articles.Mitch32^(UP) 19:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone else at USRD"? Can you point me to the discussion where USRD decided that NYSR articles would no longer be in its scope? --NE2 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent, ecx2)That's right; the US Roads project determines its scope. When New York Roads announced the split, hoping to maintain collaborative relations, US Roads responded by closing all active threads that related to New York and by declaring it would no longer provide services to the new project. The purpose of templates is to provide new editors with appropriate resources. Since the US Roads project no longer provides services and resources for these articles, it has withdrawn of its own accord. Updating the templates is merely a reflection of that. Durova^Charge! 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, where was this decided? --NE2 19:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the same thread where the departure was announced, as you're no doubt aware NE2 because you posted to it eight times. If I may quote you, this is disruption to make a point. Project tags aren't trophies. Now I have some wikignome work to finish up before resuming the next FA drive with Mitch. Thank you for your questions; this should be all settled now. Durova^Charge! 19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. Project tags are used to let editors know where they can get help, and I will help anyone from New York who posts on WT:USRD. --NE2 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may help best by ceasing this disruption. Thank you very much. I've been told you were one of the principal motivating forces behind the split. Durova^Charge! 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's going on here, and you really don't seem to be helping. Either explain the background or stay off my talk page; thank you. --NE2 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually I'm conominator of a current FAC under the new New York Roads project. That counts as helping, doesn't it? Durova^Charge! 19:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about this argument. You come here with an obvious bad attitude, telling me to shut up. That's not helping. --NE2 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nowhere Durova telling you to shut up; I see here telling you to stop disrupting Wikipedia. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disruption here was not done by me... --NE2 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, you've been one of the main instigators of the argument regarding the NYSR/USRD split. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And? I'm just responding to disruption. --NE2 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hinting that you have been adding to the disruption. I'm not certain, but that's my best guess. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hinting that you, Mitch, and anyone else who's been playing along, has been causing disruption. --NE2 20:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain how? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said "I'm just responding to disruption." Since I'm responding to the split, that hints at the split being disruption. Happy to help. --NE2 21:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A peace offering

Hi, I found a higher resolution source for the photograph on your user page and put some work into it. The most noticeable changes are the cropping and correcting uneven fading at the lower right and the hill in the distance. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 23:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same resolution, but thanks. That photo both reminds me how awesome it is that so much of the Historic Columbia River Highway remains, and that I leave so many projects unfinished :\ --NE2 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind letting me know any of the backstory here? Presumably there was a lot of off-wiki conversation. --NE2 00:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's 7.78 MB, up from 2.11 MB. And regarding off-wiki stuff, basically I tried my very best to avoid a split. Offered to be a go-between, etc. It was Mitch's decision; it wasn't until I saw the responses to his announcement that I agreed he'd made the right choice. Our shared goal is to create great articles. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 00:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded the LOC tiff and compressed as jpeg. Presumably you used a higher level of compression. Anyway, I'm particularly wondering about the conflicts between the MOS and USRD guidelines, since if such a conflict exists, it should really be taken care of. --NE2 00:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't compress .jpg files when I restore. What I did here after cropping was go in at 200% resolution and remove a variety of scratches, dirt specks, and other minor artifacts, then address the uneven fading through a series of adjustment layers before addressing the histogram. Recently started a media restoration project related to that sort of thing. We don't normally take requests (just too labor intensive), but would help out with featured article drives. Drop me a line next time you run one. Regarding the rest of your comment, it's best at this point to treat it as water under the bridge. Durova^Charge! 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping get USRD's standards to jive with the MOS. I'll be sure to ask you next time I need help.

--NE2 07:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, I'd really rather sidestep USRD's internal affairs. The best outcome of the split would be for both sides to improve the ratio of effort spent building great articles v. project metamanagement. My image work relates to a variety of projects and I would be glad to assist your next featured content drive. This is an offer I rarely extend unsolicited because of the labor involved. Cordially, Durova^Charge! 07:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 5 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Central Branch, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To determine if a route like SR 72 still exist or not

Is SR 72 (Whittier Blvd) still exist yet. Can I use Google Street View to see if SR 72 sign still exist anywhere. Is this a valid source to find the major street intersections highlight in blue to see if SR 72 is still post anywhere, or I cannot. --I-405 (Free way) 23:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. --NE2 23:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody earlier (section 6) told me to use Google Street View. Which one of route planner website is a valid source?--I-405 (Free way) 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of them is a valid source for whether a state highway still exists, since there are unsigned state highways and signed non-state highways. --NE2 23:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Ian13

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I have replied to your message and would be grateful if you'd continue the discussion on my talk page. Ian¹³ /t 18:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Avenue Parkway

Hey, I was wondering if you were going to go back to this? --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you would, now that Toll Roads News is available for use. I'm working on railroads at this time. --NE2 23:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thats cool. Thanks --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Alamitos Curve

Why did you nominate Los Alamitos Curve for deelteion. It was marked on AAA maps of Los Angeels-Orange County. Do you find any sources for los Alamitos Curve? I don't see much sources on College Park Interchange either so what should we do?--57 Free ways 23:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3] --NE2 00:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any for Los Alamitos Curve? You said it's neology. I saw it on Los Angeles-Orange County Map. Dos that count?--57 Free ways 00:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fine if it actually says "Los Alamitos Curve". However, you should make sure you have enough information to actually write an article and not just "the Los Alamitos Curve is this interchange". --NE2 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about this?--57 Free ways 00:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? It's a sign saying "health care for all Californians". --NE2 00:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do any maps worth a source?--57 Free ways 01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you a question: does the map say "Los Alamitos Curve"? --NE2 01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My map (Metro-Los Angeles-Orange County) said Los Alamitos Curve. made in 1997, AAA branch if you ever been to California. You have to buy those maps. It's nowhere on line.--57 Free ways 01:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has the exact text "Los Alamitos Curve"? --NE2 01:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. You should come to California one day.--57 Free ways 01:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to {{jct}} template

How difficult would it be to add the "insto=yes" parameter to the {{jct}} template? For example, {{jct|state=MA|I|93|dir1=south|US|1|dir2=south|insto=yes|to3=to|I|95|city1=Canton}}, with "insto=yes" meaning "insert the formated word 'TO' here between shields". The result would display as exit 20A below:

Town	#	Destinations	Notes
Braintree	17	Union Street – South Braintree, Braintree
	18	Washington Street – Braintree	Southbound exit and northbound entrance
	19	Burgin Parkway, Quincy Center, Quincy Adams MBTA Station	Signed as exits 19/18 southbound, former exit 18 ramp serves both Burgin Pkwy and Washington St
	20A	TO I-93 south / US 1 south to I-95 - Canton*
	20B	I-93 north / US 1 north – Boston*	South end of I-93/US 1 overlap
*Initial signs do not include US 1, however, plans are to add this route to the signs later on
See I-93 (exits 7-26)

I could do the testing myself, using a sandbox temporary copy of the template which I would nominate for speedy deletion after it passes troubleshooting. I just have no idea where the code would go, for example in the Template:Jct/shield subpage? If you can point me in the right direction I would like to attempt to figure this out. Sswonk (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't work; you'd need to use "insto3" in that case. I'm not a big fan of this approach, since, as someone who does a lot of exit list work, I wouldn't know when to use it. --NE2 23:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would having to2=to be able to trigger it as well as put the To in the text part of the result as well? --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but some think that when the routes are "close" (whatever that means) the "TO" shouldn't appear. There's more on WT:ELG. --NE2 00:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF does "close" mean... I personally don't care if to shows up, I'll let this one play out on its own. --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't exactly mean "close". Basically, I am talking about the intent of the sign. In most cases, the exit sign says something like "Paxtonia to US 22", meaning "this exit leads to US 22, but it's not a direct intersection". In those cases, the exit is intended for a route, for example US 22. Sometimes, actually not too often, like the above table, the exit sign says "I-93 / US 1 to I-95" meaning "go this way to get to I-95". In those cases, the exit is "for" some main road but, similar to "Best route to Logan Airport", is the suggested way to go to get to some other main route. It really is no big deal at all, since it still can be hand coded as above. If you don't want to deal with it at all, that's fine. You can also comment at the ELG thread. I just thought I would try to add it as an option in the template. Thanks for the response, NE2. Sswonk (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IA&W

Good question. Lee's "Railroads of Tompkins County" calls it a railroad, but the 2nd mortgage bonds of 1877 use "railway". I'd think the latter would be most authoritative; maybe check the ICC valuation report for the LV? Choess (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was one thing I found using Railway, but it only mentions it offhand: [4] --NE2 21:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas, Nebraska and Omaha Railway

Yeah, that's cool, I'd let it go. I thought I'd build out the article later, but there's nothing more to build out apparently. • Freechild'sup? 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fascinating list, and I would love to create a series of tables to include on Railroads in Omaha, Nebraska. Any objections? • Freechild'sup? 06:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of Citations

Thank you for the interest and contributions to northern New England railroads. I confess my first article Portland Terminal Company may have gone defensively overboard on citations. As a novice editor, I ran afoul of recent change patrols who initially tried speedy deletion and then sequentially hammered on missing references and inline citations. I look back on it now with all the nostalgia of military boot camp hazing.

An absence of contentious issues in railroad articles may reflect a lower number of hits more than the subject itself. There is a detail-oriented population within the railroad interest group sometimes identified as "rivet-counters". Human nature leads me to regard myself as a moderate in such matters; but you may decide for yourself as I offer a few comments about your recent category changes of New England railroads.

I am unschooled in subject of Wikipedia categories, but I would urge you to consider the following: Does Category: Predecessors of the Maine Central Railroad appropriately include Bridgton and Saco River Railroad, Franklin and Megantic Railway, Eustis Railroad, Kingfield and Dead River Railroad, Phillips and Rangeley Railroad, Sandy River Railroad, and Sandy River and Rangeley Lakes Railroad? The foregoing list of narrow-gauge lines were purchased as wholly-owned subsidiaries of Maine Central, but held and defaulted separately without common lettering or interchangable rolling stock. Portland Terminal Company was similarly held separately to insulate Maine Central from the economic woes of the Boston and Maine. Since Portland Terminal Company was assembled from assets of those two railroads, it might be more appropriate to consider Maine Central Railroad and Boston and Maine Railroad predecessors of Portland Terminal Company. Oops, that may not be NPOV :) Thewellman (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was slightly unsure about the SR&RL and predecessors, but figured that since it was part of the MEC system for some time, and never became part of another large system, it would be best to put them there. --NE2 03:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter, Issue 6 (FINAL ISSUE)


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 6 • 8 September 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Gap appears in freeway New York subproject appears on the Wikipedia Signpost New York State Routes leaves jurisdiction of USRD From the editors—newsletter decommissioned	State and national updates State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Rschen7754bot (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack

'twas a little quick the undo button. Sorry! <cringe> Xavexgoem (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<double cringe> Xavexgoem (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we all screw up. Just don't repeat it and there's no problem :) --NE2 08:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You win :)

Wow. I didn't even think about it until you mentioned it. It just seemed so natural to say "it doesn't link to anything and nothing links to it". :) Glad you popped in there. Protonk (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nielsen Templates

If the Nielsen templates are to be undeleted, please let me know the exactly edits (removing of Nielsen "DMA" information of course) to be made and I will, as quickly as I can, edit the templates for Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington DC. Please keep me informed on my talk page. Thanks!...NeutralHomer • Talk 04:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, not a problem. I will post on his talk page too. If you hear/see something though, please let me know :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 04:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I sense that this is a bit old but... rollback is not for edit warring. You can lose your rollback privileges if you use it for edit warring. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon second look I see that you were just reverting now that NYSR is back... it's still not a very good use of rollback as it assumes bad faith and raises a red flag, as it did with me. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona State Route 48

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Arizona State Route 48, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! JGHowes ^talk 02:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing CA history

Would this [5] be considered a RS? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it's from California Highways and Public Works. --NE2 11:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... another question... on {{cite CAstat}}, what is p= for? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an optional page number. --NE2 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

Here we go again another waste of time report of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/I-210. --I-210 (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are 75.47.x.x, thank you for creating an account. --NE2 01:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Count on me too, Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) attacks me everytime he answers on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/I-210 that i'm the sockpuppet of AL2TB which is almost definitely not even true as you said. --I-210 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regex

Thanks for your reply. It looks like it's time for me to take the plunge and learn regex! The Transhumanist 22:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oregon Central Railroad

On 12 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oregon Central Railroad, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forked River Borough, New Jersey

Hello! I just stumbled upon this redirect when visiting the article to which it leads. It seemed quite odd, as Forked River is an unincorporated area within Lacey Township (so it's neither a borough nor part of a borough).
Upon examining your contributions, I saw that this was among numerous redirects that you created for various New Jersey boroughs. Am I correct in assuming that this one was created in error? Thanks! —David Levy 23:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - this either was a borough for a little while or was proposed as one (probably the latter). "The Story of New Jersey's Civil Boundaries, 1606-1968" has more about it, though I don't currently have the book so I can't get the information for you. --NE2 23:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for he explanation. I wonder, however, how this is a useful redirect. It isn't a remotely likely link target, and users will be left with only the article title and its redirects in the search box before they get any further than typing "Forked Ri". Annoyingly, this one appears first (because the list is alphabetical), and it could give readers (particularly those who are unfamiliar with New Jersey's governmental structure) the impression that Forked River is a borough. —David Levy 01:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

The article should probably mention briefly that the place was proposed to become a borough. I don't have the information to do so but it's out there.

That's a problem with the software, not with the existence of the redirect. --NE2 01:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you could add that information when you have access to the book, I'd sincerely appreciate it.

2. I agree that an improvement to the MediaWiki software would be helpful, but regardless, I don't see any utility in the redirect. I lived in Forked River for 23 years without ever encountering the phrase "Forked River Borough" or possessing any knowledge of such a proposal. And even if someone were to search for it, he or she would find the article's actual title before completing the word "River". —David Levy 02:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, zero Google hits. Jd2718 (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try using the right Google: [6][7][8] --NE2 03:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone has Javascript enabled, you know? Also see Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting. (PS: unless you're at least in your 90s, you probably wouldn't remember it, since it was in 1923.) --NE2 03:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I realize that the auto-completion feature relies on JavaScript, but my main point is that this simply isn't a useful redirect. It apparently refers to an obscure, failed proposal from 85 years ago. I can't imagine a scenario in which someone would search for the phrase "Forked River Borough, New Jersey" over "Forked River, New Jersey" or simply "Forked River" (which wasn't a redirect until I just created it). It's inconceivable that someone could be familiar with the 85-year-old failed proposal without being more familiar with the actual unincorporated area.

2. To which reason(s) from the list are you referring?

3. Yes, I assumed that the proposal was from long before I was born. But having spent most of my life (including all of my pre-collegiate education) there, I've read and heard a great deal about Lacey Township's history (without ever encountering this piece of information). —David Levy 04:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone knowing how Wikipedia's naming conventions work, and seeing a reference to Forked RIver being a borough, very well might type it in. --NE2 05:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forked River isn't a borough or part of a borough, nor has it ever been either.

As for Wikipedia's naming conventions, it appears that only six of our 294 articles about New Jersey boroughs (past and present) contain the word "Borough" in their titles. (In all cases, this is for disambiguation from townships/cities of the same names.) So even if Forked River were a borough, its article's title would be Forked River, New Jersey. —David Levy 05:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on the naming conventions. Still, someone might be looking through the laws and see it being a borough. --NE2 05:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't a borough, nor has it ever been one or even part of one. —David Levy 05:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me something I don't know. --NE2 06:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you mention someone "seeing a reference to Forked River being a borough," are you referring to the failed proposal for it to become one? —David Levy 06:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --NE2 06:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone realistically be aware of said proposal and not know that it applied to Forked River, New Jersey? —David Levy 06:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You're not going to convince me the redirect is usuless, so stop trying. --NE2 06:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm trying to understand your reasoning. Please elaborate beyond "yes." —David Levy 06:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is that there's a nonzero benefit to having this, and the only disbenefit is caused by a recent software change. --NE2 06:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to explain how someone could be aware that that there was a failed proposal 85 years ago for Forked River, New Jersey to become a borough while being unaware of the existence of Forked River, New Jersey. You just stated that this is so, and I'm sincerely trying to understand. —David Levy 06:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could see the text of the law while looking at something else. --NE2 06:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How (other than via a deliberate search) would someone encounter that text outside of its natural context? And why would that lead him/her to type "Forked River Borough, New Jersey" (a format that we wouldn't use for the hypothetical article's title unless there were a separate incorporated New Jersey municipality called "Forked River")?

Also, how is the fact that the disbenefit pertains to a recent software change relevant? —David Levy 07:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_13. Jd2718 (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Templates you created nominated for deletion

Thanks for the heads up notification on the discussion. I'd also suggest adding the contents of Category:United States Class III railroads navbox templates to the discussion. I created these about a week before your changes and I think your solution works better. Slambo (Speak) 10:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]