AARoads:The Interchange/Archive 2

From the AARoads Wiki: Read about the road before you go
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

__ARCHIVEDTALK__

Europe: the big picture

It seems that there is interest in importing Europe. There are a lot of decisions that have to be made and I won't unpack every single one just yet. But we should probably start discussing. I firmly believe that the success of our international efforts will stand or fall on Europe.

  • Is Europe what to do next? There is some interest on Discord. I don't think South America is a good candidate as we don't have much interest, and Brazil will be a significant mess to clean up. Oceania has been suggested but I am concerned about buy-in from the Australian road editors there.
  • What are we considering Europe?
    • Are we including all the dependencies of each country, even those outside Europe? Obviously we want to finish importing the French Caribbean - however, France has territory in South America, Africa, and Oceania too.
    • The United Kingdom. It has been suggested that we defer or completely omit the UK entirely, because of SABRE. I am firmly against this. There is obviously a lengthy history of acrimony in between the US and the UK road editors on English Wikipedia. But omitting a country entirely sets a bad precedent that will lead to omitting more countries (Ireland being the obvious one, but Australia could fall into that category). Moreover, SABRE does not extend us the same courtesy [1], though their coverage of the US is not very good. I will also point out that because of the SABRE licensing terms, the UK road articles cannot be forked over to SABRE, so if they are deleted, that is that. I am also a firm believer in the strength of our leadership and our editing community and collaboration, and believe that is our competitive advantage.
      • That all being said. The UK road articles as they stand right now do have some major problems: 1) Over half of the articles are of minor city streets, road safety items, city squares, and all sorts of stuff that are out of our scope. That will have to be sorted out. 2) Unlike in the US, most of the UK road editors went along with the tightening of notability, and many minor and some major A roads got merged away, sometimes inconsistently. 3) The UK has long resisted the junction list standards that the rest of the world has followed. So on those grounds, I am okay with deferring importing of the UK until we have more European editors (and possibly some UK ones) and have the time to clean up the mess, rather than delaying importing other countries with higher quality content and more interest.
      • If we delay importing the UK, we need to determine what to do about the dependencies - Isle of Man, Jersey, Gibraltar. No other dependencies have articles.
    • How far east do we go?
      • Russia? It will be really annoying to only import part of a country.
      • Turkey? It is split between Europe and Asia.
      • Cyprus? It is close to the Middle East, but uses the euro and is Schengen.
      • Georgia/Armenia/Azerbaijan? They have E-roads, and Georgia has an outstanding request to import.
      • Turkmenistan/Kyrgyzstan/Kazakhstan/Uzbekistan/Tajikistan? They have E-roads.
  • What gets imported first?
    • Do we do E-roads first? Are there scenarios (see "How far east" discussion) where we just import the E-roads and defer the rest of the country until later?
    • Do we fulfill requests first?
    • Do we prioritize certain groups ("Western Europe", Schengen, EU, Eurozone)? What about micro-states? France and Netherlands to round out North America?
  • One task force or multiple? AARoads:Caribbean is getting pretty long.
  • What classes of road - a question that will be deferred until some of the other ones are answered. --Rschen7754 23:29, 28 April 2024 (EDT)
I do think the E-roads should be imported first. After all, even they are not immune from AfD. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:33, 28 April 2024 (EDT)
I don't have many strong opinions on non-US imports (since I've unfortunately never left the US, I feel like I probably don't know what I'm talking about), but I would suggest not getting hung up on what counts as "Europe". If the plan is to eventually import the whole world at some point anyway, it really doesn't matter in the long term whether Russia and Türkiye get imported with Europe or with Asia. So I would say if it could be considered Europe, go ahead and import it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:40, 28 April 2024 (EDT)
I definitely think Europe should be the next continent we work on importing due to good content and editor interest. I think we can start with importing the E-roads first before we go to individual countries. In terms of what countries to do, I would be fine with doing certain groups like the EU countries first or else follow a geographical pattern through Europe (i.e. west to east). I think in terms of how far east we can go I think we can include Russia (most roads in European part of country) along with Georgia/Armenia/Azerbaijan and Cyprus, as they are small and also there is an editor request for Georgia who also wants adjacent countries imported. I think Turkey and Turkmenistan/Kyrgyzstan/Kazakhstan/Uzbekistan/Tajikistan can be held until Asia gets imported as they are mostly/entirely in Asia; however, we can import E-roads for those countries. Dependencies of European countries such as France and the Netherlands can be imported along with the main country as I imagine they would not constitute too many articles. I think it might be a good idea to hold importing the UK to either the end of Europe or else later on after other continents as the articles are a mess; however, they should eventually be imported for completeness sake. As for the task force, I think it would be a good idea to have a main Europe task force with countries with a lot of resources to list being split into their own task force. Dough4872 23:47, 28 April 2024 (EDT)
I agree that Europe should be next, and I'd suggest that we move slowly and prioritize countries that either have interested editors or are already in pretty good shape (and on the flip side, de-prioritize anything like the UK that will be a mess to sort out). I say that mostly because I want to make sure anything we import gets bluelinked and maybe some basic cleanup, and if we dump a ton of new stuff in the lap of an editor base that's mostly interested in North America, that might not happen. I'm fine with importing any of the "borderline Europe" countries as it makes sense to do so (e.g. we have a request for Georgia). TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:03, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
As I was the one volunteering for Georgia - I am still up for that. I am not checking in here all the time, so ping me or write a message if things get imported. Labrang (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2024 (EDT)
Taskforces - I've made these fairly big and include both actual and potential article totals (using the data from the tables, which I'm not sure is totally accurate). I've used the UNECE members (minus US/Canada) as a definition of Europe.
  • E Roads (and other Europe-wide stuff?) - 230(+10?) existing, 230(+10?) potential
  • Western Europe (AND, BEL, ESP, FRA (inc overseas), LUX, MCO, NLD (inc overseas), PRT) 559 existing, 3061 potential
  • Britain & Ireland (GBR (inc overseas), IRL) - 2861 existing, 2921 potential
  • Northern Europe (DNK (inc overseas), EST, FIN, ISL, LVA, LTU, NOR, SWE) - 257 existing, 2733 potential
  • Germany (DEU) - 275 existing, 6300 potential
  • Central Europe (AUT, CZE, HUN, ITA, LIE, MLT, POL, SMR, CHE, VAT) - 370 existing, 3355 potential
  • South Eastern Europe (ALB, BIH, BGR, HRV, GRC, KOS, MDA, MNE, MKD, ROU, SRB, SVN, UKR) - 593 existing, 1274 potential
  • Far Eastern Europe (ARM, AZE, BLR, CYP, GEO, ISR, KAZ, KGZ, RUS, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB) - 240 existing, 939 potential
I think they are perhaps too big. Perhaps separate countries would be the best approach (with some merged).
As for ordering. The E Road system is sensible to import (in full - it's more effort to leave out the eastern edges than to bring it all across!) first. Georgia and Spain have requests, so them next. Then I don't care either way - what there's demand for, I guess. Si404 (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
Regions of Europe according to the CIA World Factbook
Most of the Far Eastern Europe category falls neatly into Asia, so I'd say we can skip them for now. I kind of like how the CIA World Factbook divides Europe into regions. If nothing else, it's at least something. We can always adjust. –Fredddie™ 02:00, 2 May 2024 (EDT)
Does it fall neatly into Asia? Only the -stans and Israel aren't a division on your map. The border is blurry. Sure, the Far Eastern Europe is stuff that people might not see as European (even Belarus) but others might, hence why I split it off from elsewhere. I would personally not have any of it as a priority, except that someone has requested Georgia - so it's at least worth importing that early on.
Those CIA regions are nonsense for our purposes - some are very large (both in reality and potential), others are very small. I tried to make my regions roughly similar sized in terms of articles (though Western Europe is rather too large and ought to be split) as much as possible - with the exception of splitting the eastern stuff in two. Then there's it being a map made for outsiders for the purpose of geopolitics. While there does seem to have been some adjustments since the fundamental change in geopolitics in the 90s (Slovenia split from the rest of Yugoslavia, the Caucasus countries split from the USSR), it reeks of the 1970s and spy networks - Free-Europe with no worries in Blues, Facist Iberia in Dark Red, German-speaking countries and the more controlled occupied countries in yellow. The 'non-aligned' and semi-autonomous commie countries in brown, the USSR in light red, the free-but-flirts-with-hard-left-government countries in green. The Baltic states have more in common with the countries over the sea than they do with other ex-Soviet nations, Greece is firmly part of the Balkans rather than some outpost of Western Europe, etc. I'll continue this discussion below. Si404 (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2024 (EDT)
Going back to the question of why "Europe" matters so much. I mean, we could just go ahead and import ROW (rest of world) so that it doesn't matter so much who gets imported first. However, there is one non-Europe request outstanding (South Africa), and there is high quality content in Japan and Australia that I don't want to defer for too much longer. --Rschen7754 15:16, 3 May 2024 (EDT)

E-roads and "meta Europe"

I don't want to distract from the larger discussion above, but it seems the first step will be importing the E-roads and other articles relating to Europe as a whole. There are some ambiguous cases, however:

I think List of highest paved roads in Europe (along with the by country list) would fit well in the annex space along with other superlative lists. I think we can cover the Pan-European corridors and Trans-European road network as they do deal with roads despite also dealing with other modes of transport. This is similar to how we have DOT articles despite the fact that they also often deal with other modes of transport besides roads. However, we can make the focus of the Pan-European corridors and Trans-European road network articles more road-centric. Dough4872 21:02, 1 May 2024 (EDT)
Agreed that the highest paved roads list is annex-worthy. I also agree that the Pan- and Trans-European articles are similar to the ADHS, so I have no problem with including them. The intermodal stuff is worth a mention, but the details are best left out. Quite a few of the city DOT articles that we imported had a lot of information about local transit that was out of scope. We just removed it and moved on. That's what we can do here. –Fredddie™ 02:00, 2 May 2024 (EDT)
Yes, that first step looks like being basically anything EU or UNECE that's relevant. One road network (the E Roads of the Agreement) and some articles about priority corridors for improvement funding. The TEM is just roads, the Pan-European Corridors are all road, save the River Danube. The EU TEN-T corridors are multimodal but they all have roads as part of them (map). As Fredddie says, we just remove the stuff that's out of scope from those articles post-importation. Si404 (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2024 (EDT)
As just a note, I plan to go ahead and create AARoads:Europe soon, and just go ahead and import all the E-roads. One thing that will have to be addressed is that some E-roads redirect to the national road since they are a 1:1 relation, and at the moment I don't plan to import those in this batch. Individual cases can be sorted out at AARoads:Cleanup or can wait until the country in question is imported. --Rschen7754 14:44, 3 May 2024 (EDT)

The following E roads are AWOL: E88 w, E89 w, E91 w, E96 w, E98 w, E115 w, E119 w, E121 w, E125 w, E201 w (redirect), E234 w (redirect), E372 w, E373 w, E391 w, E401 w, E402 w, E422 w, E441 w, E471 w, E512 w, E531 w, E533 w, E552 w, E842 w, E013 w. Si404 (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2024 (EDT)

Thanks. They can be reported at AARoads:Cleanup (I'll open a request for this one). Usually this happens when the article wasn't tagged properly on enwiki. --Rschen7754 14:26, 8 May 2024 (EDT)

Taskforces / dividing Europe

My above list tried to group countries culturally while also trying to create areas with a similar number of articles (though splitting Iberia from France/Benelux would make that easier for existing stuff) Coherent units that aren't just one country (or one with a microstate) would be: Britain and Ireland, the Nordic countries, the Baltic countries, Benelux, Western Balkans, Iberia, the Visigrad 4, German-speaking countries, etc. Like with any groupings (what states are Mid-western, for instance?) there's not really hard boundaries. The problem with these coherent units is that some are rather small (eg the Baltic nations) in terms of articles, others a bit too large (eg the Allmanophonic nations) - so I grouped them together with a similar group or split them up a bit to try and equalise numbers. My personal preference is one big project like AARoads:United_States with sub-projects for certain systems, and for each country (some could be grouped). Si404 (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2024 (EDT)

As I mentioned above, I think we can have AARoads:Europe as the main resource page for Europe with countries with a lot of resources split into their own page. Meanwhile, countries with not a lot of resources along with resources for the whole continent (such as E-roads) can be listed at AARoads:Europe. I don’t think we need a resource page for every country and I don’t like the idea of regional resource pages as there are differing definitions of regions. Dough4872 08:27, 2 May 2024 (EDT)
That makes sense. I agree fully with that. Si404 (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2024 (EDT)
I think there was some confusion with me posting the CIA World Factbook map above. It was merely an idea to discuss. Yes there are political issues with lumping Russia (for instance) in with, well, any other country, but we are not beholden to anything. Don't forget this is a wiki, we can just change it later if it doesn't work. –Fredddie™ 11:54, 2 May 2024 (EDT)
On AARoads we are one team of editors. That was one of the mistakes of English Wikipedia, we started off as teams of individual US states, and then figured out that didn't work, and had to reorganize into a national team (and went through a lot of drama in that reorg). And the non-US/Canada editors were never really integrated into that, which is one of the causes of the problems alluded to earlier.
So it comes down to where to list the resources, as well as assessment (though I am hoping that individual countries can get a statistical breakdown). --Rschen7754 14:37, 2 May 2024 (EDT)
Of course I saw the CIA map as an idea to discuss - hence why I discussed it! Looking back at what you said about the map (perhaps a mistake as it made me more annoyed), you said "If nothing else, it's at least something." - that phrasing (especially the italicising) is rather rude - and you are keeping up this idea about the CIA map was proposed as some sort of discussion starter despite there already being something to discuss! Trash my earlier proposal, by all means - I don't agree with it, but provide reasons why rather than ignore it. In fact, I wouldn't even have minded if it was ignored - if it was in a tumbleweed sense rather than a 'we have nothing, here's something' sense. As Rschen says, we need the non-US/Canadian editors integrated. I don't think that gets done by ignoring proposals by such editors talking about their home turf, in favour of low effort copied proposals by a US organisation that are only tangentially related to the topic at hand. Si404 (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2024 (EDT)
Without stepping into specifics just yet, it does seem like grouping countries could have political overtones. But on the other hand, I don't want AARoads:Vatican City. (And I don't want to import part of Russia and not all of it). --Rschen7754 14:14, 3 May 2024 (EDT)
I lean more towards Si404/Dough's latest thoughts about splitting out certain countries, but then we have to be concerned about which countries get split out. As I said above - it's not meant to carry wiki political overtones or real world political overtones, unlike English Wikipedia. This is really just a place to store the resources, and (maybe) as the line item for assessment (but I am hoping that it can just be split by country regardless of size). But if it will carry hidden meanings and we can't avoid it, then we need to factor that into the decision making process. --Rschen7754 14:54, 3 May 2024 (EDT)
Ultimately, I don't care how we divvy up the countries. One idea that has popped up in my DMs is that if a larger country shares its road network with a much smaller neighbor (San Marino, Liechtenstein come to mind), maybe we don't need separate task forces. –Fredddie™ 01:44, 4 May 2024 (EDT)
Maybe that is what we do for Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City, Liechtenstein. Andorra is the next smallest country, but has ~50 potential articles. --Rschen7754 02:21, 4 May 2024 (EDT)

Interchanges

We do expect to cover at least some interchanges, but not every interchange. How do we decide this? Do we come up with our own wikipedia:WP:GNG? --Rschen7754 02:12, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

Yeah, I think interchanges should only be covered if there is significant coverage in multiple sources. Dough4872 07:50, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
Same for bridges and tunnels. If the wikipedia article meets our needs, link to it. Clone or create if not.Moabdave (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
Part of me wants to have an article for every system interchange, but maybe pare that back to named system interchanges. –Fredddie™ 01:17, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
In California almost everything has a name (the list of names is hundreds of pages long), but that doesn't mean they are notable. --Rschen7754 01:46, 25 June 2023 (EDT)
That's why I'd limit it to system interchanges, which are freeway-to-freeway. –Fredddie™ 18:03, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
There would still be 50 in the LA area alone. --Rschen7754 02:17, 25 October 2023 (EDT)
As long as it has a proper name that is/was in widespread use beyond the DOT offices, I see no reason to not include interchanges. SounderBruce 00:36, 28 June 2023 (EDT)
I'd add that the name should be both enduring and not merely descriptive. Imzadi 1979 → 05:50, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  • I think this is a good place for stuff Wikipedia wouldn't cover. Any interchange with a non-generic name generally has decent coverage of its name, we can be more detailed with ramp descriptions since we don't need a book or newspaper describing it. What I will still hold steadfast against is the plethora of what I call "SimCity 4 interchange types"... there's no such thing as a clover stack! - Floydian (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2023 (EDT)
There is such thing as a clover stack. See, for example, I-85 & I-26. Ran4sh (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2023 (EST)
Ah, that's a directional interchange. –Fredddie™ 16:02, 13 March 2024 (EDT)

Poll: interchanges

Starting this poll so we can at least get a better sense of what is being included here (and maybe archive this section off the page one day). --Rschen7754 01:26, 17 February 2024 (EST)

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


This proposal passes, with the clarification that colloquial names are also valid if they are used in press coverage. --Rschen7754 01:42, 27 May 2024 (EDT)

Interchanges must be named, and the name must appear in outside sources besides the department or ministry of transportation.
  • Yes. --Rschen7754 01:27, 17 February 2024 (EST)
  • Yes. Dough4872 09:20, 17 February 2024 (EST)
  • Yes. SounderBruce 20:39, 27 February 2024 (EST)
  • No. Named by who? Are colloquial names that got major local press coverage, like the Big X, OK? –Fredddie™ 00:12, 28 February 2024 (EST)
    • I would be okay with that affirmative clarification. I don't think the El Toro Y is an official name, for example, and I don't think a lot of the California interchanges are either. --Rschen7754 00:37, 28 February 2024 (EST)
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


This proposal passes. --Rschen7754 22:01, 25 May 2024 (EDT)

There must be more that can be said about the interchange beyond ramp descriptions and content that could belong in the articles about the intersecting roads.
  • Yes. Otherwise we open ourselves up to hundreds of articles that are just descriptions of the map - and for interchanges, that is overkill. --Rschen7754 01:27, 17 February 2024 (EST)
  • Yes. Dough4872 09:20, 17 February 2024 (EST)
  • Yes. SounderBruce 20:39, 27 February 2024 (EST)
  • Yes. This is another reminder that we need to describe why things are important. –Fredddie™ 00:12, 28 February 2024 (EST)

City-detail articles

Feel this could be controversial, but for some Interstates in large states, perhaps city-detail (or metropolitan-detail) articles could be appropriate. For example, for Interstate 5 in Washington, I had to truncate a lot of Seattle-specific content that could very well fill out its own article (say Interstate 5 in Seattle). Other cities have the luxury of using named freeways to write about city-specific details, but no such luck in other states that never named their freeways. SounderBruce 00:36, 28 June 2023 (EDT)

How did the newspapers refer to the proposed freeway before the proposed freeway was designated I-5? Did they call it something like "Tacoma–Everett Expressway"? VC 15:18, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
I think that in general this is a bad idea, since someone might see that Seattle has city-detail articles (due to overflow content) and try to start something absurd like "Interstate 35 in Ardmore, Oklahoma" or something like that. I feel like the annex would be a great place to hold this kind of overflow content, however. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:44, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
I also think this is a bad idea generally for similar reasons as Scott. I could only see this as maybe a major metropolitan area sub article, like maybe an "Interstate 75 in Detroit", but by scope it starts at Flat Rock and runs to Waterford to encompass the suburbs of the Motor City. Maybe. It think we'd get too many minor ones, like someone trying to do "Interstate 75 in Flint", which I'd laugh at while deleting as out of scope. Imzadi 1979 → 16:22, 6 July 2023 (EDT)
It was simply referred to as the "Seattle Freeway" or "Central Freeway", but that was quickly dropped after completion. Since there's no definitive name (many just call it "the freeway" if not using the number), it's a tough one. SounderBruce 16:32, 6 July 2023 (EDT)
Select cases yes, but to be honest it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to codify it in policy that it's ok. My personal pet peeve is when I invest the time to read or review a roads article and the route description is nothing more than a regurgitation of Google Maps, consisting of endless repetitions of highway x proceeds in <insert cardinal direction here> until it's junction with y. It then turns <insert new cardinal direction here>. I feel like my time has been wasted as I could just pull up Google Maps myself and get the exact same information faster. I fear an explosion of such articles, as if one is describing a short roadway (of say less than 30 miles) that's the type of route description that tends to happen, just because you have the space so fill it. I'm ok with it on a case-by-case basis as we do have some very good "city level" articles, Arroyo Seco Parkway is one. But that's also due to some unique circumstances with that road. So IF we could codify some good criteria that would have to be met before just assuming a city/metro detail article is warrented, I'd be ok with it. But a blanket approval, no. Dave (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2023 (EDT)
I like the idea but as Scott said, how do we prevent Interstate 80 in Walcott, Iowa from happening? Issue special dispensations? Father son and holy moly that's a lot of detail, better split it off. –Fredddie™ 13:08, 6 July 2023 (EDT)
The jist seems so far seems to be "not opposed but concerned about its misuse". The criteria for state detail articles is sizable spans in 3 states. So there is some precedent to codifying guidelines for sub articles. How about someting like, "Split into city or regional sub articles if and only if the main article is at least a B class article (new scale, so GA in Wikipedia land) and the route description is at least x length of reviewed prose. Would that create the right incentives of yes, but only when the parent article is a quality article and long enough to break out? or is this an enwiki style policy where the cure is worse than the disease? Dave (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2023 (EDT)
We could have a minimum criteria (X population, Y prominence, or being the center city of a top X metropolitan area). I just want to make sure we can have comprehensive coverage of urban highways without it overshadowing the rest of the highway. SounderBruce 16:32, 6 July 2023 (EDT)
Why don't we hash out a list of potential city-detail articles and limit it to those? I think we can toss out any three-digit Interstate right away as well as the two 35E/35W splits since they're essentially already this same idea. I'll start working on a list. –Fredddie™ 17:35, 6 July 2023 (EDT)
Actually, having looked at it for five minutes, I'm not sure this is the right way. I think a case-by-case basis would be best and I would support Seattle straight away. That being said, we should absolutely look into lists of Interstates in metro areas. These could potentially morph into lists of numbered routes and then location pages that would eventually replace our enwiki bluelinkings. –Fredddie™ 17:48, 6 July 2023 (EDT)
General question: What kind of size limit do we want on articles? The biggest highway article enwiki is w:Ontario Highway 401 at 215 KB markup size and 48 KB prose size. The biggest Interstate article enwiki is w:Interstate 40 in Tennessee, which is 205 KB markup size and 59 KB prose size. w:Interstate 5 in Washington is 187 KB markup size and 56 KB prose size. w:U.S. Route 113 is 168 KB markup size and 65 KB prose size. If SounderBruce can greatly expand the size of I-5 WA with a lot more Seattle detail, how large do you think we should go before we need to split out the Seattle area details? VC 19:08, 6 July 2023 (EDT)
IMHO ON-401 and I-40 in Tennessee are probably too big. I reviewed the latter and it was too much prose for one sitting (at least for me). But I would be careful about having a hard length cutoff before you can split. As we've seen, roadgeeks are more than capable for filling up a route description with, let's just say barely relevant stuff to quickpass whatever criteria they are aiming for, Exhibit a. "Route x is NOT part of the NHS. It's NOT part of the Autobahn network, it's NOT a British motorway". I don't want to encourage more of that. That's in part why I suggested the parent article must be GA or higher before can be split into city detail articles. Dave (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2023 (EDT)
I'm okay with articles like Arroyo Seco Parkway, but in general I don't support city detail articles for the reasons above. --Rschen7754 02:40, 18 May 2024 (EDT)

Interwiki link colors

There was some talk somewhere about changing the color of interwiki links (such as the "bluelinks" to enwiki) to differentiate from other external links. I'd like to propose the following colors:

  • #0000cc for unvisited links
  • #800080 for visited links.

According to mw:Design/Link colors, both of these colors are different than any of the default skin colors so there shouldn't be any issue there.

Any thoughts? –Fredddie™ 22:31, 19 September 2023 (EDT)

I like this idea for a color change for interwiki links. Dough4872 23:47, 21 September 2023 (EDT)
No gripes here. TC (Eli) 05:06, 22 September 2023 (EDT)
A typical paragraph will have several interwiki links to Wikipedia. Will the #0000cc be distracting compared to the current color? The Chinese Wikipedia developed a w:zh:Template:Internal link helper for linking to other Wikipedias and Wikidata within article text. It highlights the link in #007a5e (and turns #d73333 on hover). I find the green to have just the right amount of contrast, but I haven't checked how it fares with color blindness. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 03:12, 24 September 2023 (EDT)
I think it might make more sense for the more saturated colors (i.e. the two proposed ones) to be used to internal links and the less saturated for external. For one, that underscores the "this is on the same topic" vs. "this is on a different topic" distinction, so it seems like it would be more intuitive to make the most relevant links more noticeable. Secondly, since there will be more external links than internal links, it makes more sense for those to blend in more to keep from overwhelming the user. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:00, 30 September 2023 (EDT)
This makes more sense, I agree. TC (Eli) 01:20, 10 November 2023 (EST)
@Fredddie: Are we at the point where someone can action this? --Rschen7754 23:58, 7 June 2024 (EDT)
To be honest, I put it in my personal css and forgot about it. But, I went ahead and implemented it. –Fredddie™ 00:54, 8 June 2024 (EDT)

Secondary/County/minor highway systems

Note: I have taken the liberty of archiving a couple of dozen short sections that formerly resided here. They were all regarding secondary/minor route systems and should system X have articles, just entries in a list or be excluded from scope. This is not me declaring the decision is final for any individual system. I made this decision at a combined level that these discussions were bloating this page, and all more or less said the same thing. Most of these only had one or two votes summarized as "probably not notable enough for dedicated articles, listical is probably the best option. However, if someone can create a quality article for such a highway, go for it! We don't need the listicles to save articles from the notability police here!" If anyone feels any of these systems needs additional discussion or disagrees my summary statement applies to a specific system, feel free to restore or re-open the discussion for that system. Dave (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2023 (EST)

I strongly disagree with the mass archiving as there was significant discussion and disagreement on several of them. I will begin restoring them shortly. --Rschen7754 03:12, 16 November 2023 (EST)

Nevada

Nevada urban routes 500-699
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will be done by table unless there is enough for standalone articles. --Rschen7754 14:18, 2 January 2024 (EST)

  • If these roadways are better known by name, then we should title them by name, with disambiguation as necessary. The notable ones should have standalone articles, and the non-notable ones should stay as table entries. VC 21:18, 28 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Per VC but listicle instead of table. --Rschen7754 14:07, 27 November 2023 (EST)
  • The current content policy says articles should be titled alike with others in the same system; we did not import the Use Common Names policy from enwp, given that here all of our articles derive their notability from the system they're a part of. So they should be titled as their SR number rather than their local name (though the latter should of course be a redirect). Otherwise, yes, standalone articles for the interesting ones and everything else can be tableified. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:21, 31 December 2023 (EST)
Nevada secondary 700-895
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These articles will be in listicles. --Rschen7754 23:26, 12 December 2023 (EST)

Listicle for most, dedicated articles where enough content exists to support one. Moabdave (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

  • Per Dave. --Rschen7754 14:07, 27 November 2023 (EST)
Nevada county roads
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


The only consensus is that outside of CC-215, there should not be separate articles for each route. What county-wide articles look like will be decided on a case-by-case basis. --Rschen7754 17:19, 8 June 2024 (EDT)

I think that's too harsh. Most road lists of county routes came from a scraping a government created existing list or map. This was just a more direct scraping than most. However, why re-type such a list if one is already available? IMHO, the only problem with that article is it needs to be more explicit that the table was generated by the Elko County commission, above and beyond a footnote. I did something similar with the table of mountain passes in the route description for U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. I might play with this table to do something similar.Dave (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2023 (EST)
For clarity, my vote is table at most, though I could even say no coverage. --Rschen7754 01:22, 17 February 2024 (EST)
I would vote for a capstone article for the state plus CC-215. –Fredddie™ 16:33, 13 March 2024 (EDT)

Malta

I propose that we go ahead and import Malta. That would just be [3], however I suspect that pages would eventually be created for each route. I propose that we include the 1, 2, and 3 digit routes. Thoughts? --Rschen7754 18:52, 25 May 2024 (EDT)

@Sariastuff: --Rschen7754 18:52, 25 May 2024 (EDT)
I think Malta would be good to import next since there is an interested editor and for now only one article to import, which would set the base for additional articles to be created. Dough4872 21:59, 25 May 2024 (EDT)
Go for it! (3-digit routes are probably a listicle - I don't remember them being signed - but if detail can be written, I'm always for articles. But this is all by-the-by as it has nothing to do with the importation of the country). Si404 (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2024 (EDT)

Georgia

To fulfill the remaining Europe requests, I propose that we import the country of Georgia. There are only ~15 articles [4], most of them S articles (that should be renamed to be S-X (Georgia), removing "highway").

As for the future, I would consider the S and Sh (secondary) articles to be notable, but the A (local/municipal roads) might not be. --Rschen7754 12:46, 27 May 2024 (EDT)

@Labrang: --Rschen7754 12:46, 27 May 2024 (EDT)
I think importing Georgia is logical since there is interest and it won’t be too many articles to import. Dough4872 23:35, 27 May 2024 (EDT)
read - and yes, i am available to guide this from the content part. Note on notability: A-roads are not notable indeed. These are all local roads that are administered and governed through the municipal bodies - henceforth every municipality distributes numbers (ie there are 50+ A-XX roads - and it runs into the hundreds depending the municipality). Also most Sh-roads are not notable. There are up to a few dozen out of the 209 that have a certain degree of notability, ie a few long distance interregional roads or access roads to (remote) mountain valleys that are well known - such as to Svaneti (Mestia), Shatili or Tusheti. Labrang (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2024 (EDT)
There are other options as well for intermediate cases, such as what are called listicles (AA:RCS). --Rschen7754 14:43, 30 May 2024 (EDT)
That could be an option for a selection of Sh-roads. Not a first priority, but further "down the road", so to speak. Labrang (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2024 (EDT)
@Labrang: Could you verify that I have AA:NC right for Georgia? I didn't use a hyphen when I renamed just now. I also see the infobox on S1 (Georgia) has A 1 listed, which seems confusing given that there are other A roads. --Rschen7754 22:05, 5 June 2024 (EDT)
well noted - somehow I missed that in the infobox. That should be S1. In official documents the hyphen is used, but on corresponding road signs and other communications the hyphen is absent. I am not sure what should be the practice in that case here. Labrang (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2024 (EDT)
My personal opinion is that we should go with the hyphen then (similar to Michigan which is in a similar boat), however others might disagree so I want to give room for comment. --Rschen7754 20:05, 6 June 2024 (EDT)
Please correct me if I have it wrong: official documentation uses the scheme S-<route number>, while informal documents and signs use the scheme S<route number>. I ask, which is more likely to change? Based on my experience in the US, informal documents are never consistent, and change frequently. Signs can change over time as well, however the pace is usually a slow change. However the official documents tend to be constant and consistent. For that reason I would support the official practice S-<route number>. However, I don't have strong feelings either way, and if someone can make an argument that the situation is different here and the S<route number> is more likely to be stable and last for the long term, I could be convinced to change my opinion.Dave (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2024 (EDT)
In response to your question on "likely to change": the dash has been used in the early 2000s on road signs (see this 2004 photo in Commons). However, before 2010 they have already been phased out, replaced by the indication without a dash. None of the new road signs (be it replaced or in newly opened road sections) have a dash. To my recollection, having driven thousands of miles across the country spanning many years. But that is still a more or less anecdotal observation - which can be corroborated by the dozens of photos in Commons. However, the latest officially updated road list of 2022 (the list is confirmed by government/parliament every 5 years) maintains the dash. I don't have a strong preference. There's something to say for the officially documented format/convention, while at the same time the practice on the ground also has a value. We can stick to the official format, and then make a short remark on it - either at the individual road or at the general (Georgian road) system page Labrang (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2024 (EDT)
I will go ahead and move to use the dash. --Rschen7754 13:01, 15 June 2024 (EDT)

Assessment and Preliminary WikiWork

Thanks to @Fredddie:, we have initial assessments applied to our articles based on their Wikipedia assessments, as translated to our assessment scale. Articles on Wikipedia that were Featured Articles or A-Class are A-Class (blue) here. Good Articles there are B-Class (dark green) here. B- or C-Class there are C-Class (yellow-green) here. Start-Class there is D-Class (orange) here, and Stub-Class there is E-Class (red) here. Each class has a color assignment as previously noted, and article titles will appear in that color with the assessment spelled out in the tagline below it.

On Wikipedia, USRD pioneered the use of a statistic called WikiWork. Now that initial article assessments have been added, we have some initial stats, we can start computing WW values for the project. Once we enable regional tagging in the assessments, we can break out the stats by regions.

As of May 27, 2024:

Class Count ω ω Factor
A 115 0 0
B 1,306 1,306 1
C 5,490 10,980 2
D 4,953 14,859 3
E 3,285 13,140 4
Total 15,149 40,285 N/A

The Ω, or average WikiWork is 2.659, meaning our average article is currently between a C- and a D-Class in terms of quality.

In the future, Lists will be assessed on a similar scale and can be factored into WW stats. Featured Lists (FL-Class) on Wikipedia are AL-Class, aka A-Class lists. There are BL-, CL-, DL- and EL-Classes in the scheme, and List-Class will eventually be retired as lists are assessed into the appropriate classes. Accounting for the AL- and List-Class counts of 11 and 1,091, and putting List-Class as equal to EL-Class, we get an overall total ω of 44,649 and a Ω of 2.747. Imzadi 1979 → 14:35, 27 May 2024 (EDT)

WikiConference North America 2024

Hi, I know many of you have also edited on Wikipedia & other Wikimedia projects. I would like to invite anyone who edits here & who plan to attend this year's WikiConference North America (WCNA), (4-6 October 2024) to consider submitting a proposal for a session there. It would be great to have a session on AARoads!

Appropriately, the theme for WCNA 2024 is Crossroads, inspired by this year's location in Indianapolis.

You can find session types described here & program tracks described here. You can create a submission from here.

I hope to see you there! Peaceray (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2024 (EDT)

South Africa

I propose that we fulfill the remaining outstanding request and import South Africa. It is about 500 articles. South Africa has been an AFD target over the last several months as well.

That would be:

  • N - national route
  • R - provincial route - 2 digit
  • R - regional route - 3 digit
  • (theoretically there could be D - district roads, but no articles)
  • M - metro routes - by city. They are on the borderline of what enwiki would tolerate - some are freeways, but as they were city routes they were not automatically notable. This is probably something that merits discussion here.

The existing naming follows the new standard of Axx (disambiguator) so I suppose we just leave it as is.

There are various other ring roads and other roads; nothing stuck out to me as being entirely out of scope. --Rschen7754 20:41, 9 June 2024 (EDT)

I agree on importing South Africa next because there is an interested editor and the articles were recently targeted on Wikipedia. I think we can look into making RCS lists for the metro routes as some of them may not be notable enough for individual articles, as evidenced by the merges and deletion discussions involving them on Wikipedia. Dough4872 21:13, 9 June 2024 (EDT)
I think Metropolitan Routes deserve only list articles at the moment, kind-of-like the article currently named List of Metropolitan Routes in South Africa on Wikipedia. Only for a few of them do I endorse having articles, like M1 (Johannesburg), M2 (Johannesburg), M3 (Cape Town), M4 (Durban), M4 (Pretoria), M5 (Cape Town) & M13 (Durban), as they are important freeway routes in the municipalities that they serve. So, yeah, I suggest we mainly focus on the articles that are part of the National Routes, Provincial Routes & Regional Routes categories. Chils Kemptonian (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2024 (EDT)
I will import, but I am holding off a day or two to let the dust settle with the assessment first (to reduce server load). --Rschen7754 02:05, 16 June 2024 (EDT)
While I'm still waiting for the dust to settle down for the main import, I did create AARoads:South Africa just now. --Rschen7754 22:28, 17 June 2024 (EDT)
Looking at the way "Category:South Africa" is looking at the moment, wouldn't it be better if we removed all "numbered routes" from there since they are already in "sub-categories"? Chils Kemptonian (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2024 (EDT)
@Fredddie: so the question doesn't get lost --Rschen7754 21:35, 28 June 2024 (EDT)
It's a good question. Comparing Category:United States and Category:South Africa, the only articles in the main USA category are national in scope. I just cleared out a few in the ZAF category and yeah I agree that there shouldn't be any numbered routes in that category. –Fredddie™ 23:35, 28 June 2024 (EDT)
I just went ahead and took care of it. Platinum Highway was the only article that I wasn't 100% sure from context what category it should go into. That being said, there are Provincial and Regional road categories for each province and ideally, each National route should be tagged by the province and city or metro area that it enters. –Fredddie™ 23:50, 28 June 2024 (EDT)

Assessment

I'd like to formally introduce article assessments to the AARoads Wiki. I went back and forth on how we should do a project banner and I think this is the most efficient way for us. Those of us who were or still are Wikipedians will recognize the system used as Template:WPBS. For any topic that we want to assess, there needs to be a small banner template that uses {{#invoke:WikiProject banner|main}}. Then, these small banners are placed within the first unnamed parameter |1= of {{Talk header}}. For instance, a state highway in Iowa falls under AA:US, AA:Iowa, and AA:US/SH, so we place three banners {{Banner/USA}}, {{Banner/Iowa}}, and {{Banner/USSH}}, respectively, within the talk header like so: 

{{talk header|class=C|
{{Banner/USA}}
{{Banner/Iowa}}
{{Banner/USSH}}
}}

Talk:Iowa Highway 1 demonstrates how it looks. If you notice, the class parameter in the talk header is inherited by the banners automatically. Slick! Any article flags, such as |needs-map= or |attention-rjl=, are placed in the talk header {{talk header|class=C|needs-map=yes|.... The Talk header doc page has more information on all of the article flags.

Category:Project banners with quality assessment has the list of all available banners for use, which is all of the countries in North America, South America, and Europe. All of them are in the format Template:Banner/<place name>. I've only created a handful of road type banners, so I would request them at AARoads:Cleanup#Requested templates so all requests are in one place.

I should note that there are a couple cosmetic things that I need to fix yet, but those are minor and won't get in the way of tagging articles.

What do you think? –Fredddie™ 16:33, 14 June 2024 (EDT)

State tagging

In the before times, if an article had state detail pages (i.e. Interstate 80 and Interstate 80 in Iowa), the national I-80 article would not be tagged for states that had S/D articles. Is this a practice we want to continue? Why or why not? –Fredddie™ 12:56, 23 June 2024 (EDT)

I would say yes. If the purpose is to track the quality the state as a topic has produced, then the I-80 in IA article in your example is directly related to Iowa's quality metrics. The sections of the I-80 parent article for CA, NV, UT, etc. would contribute to the I-80 article's individual rating, but they don't really apply to IA. The alternative would be some messy calculation that the CA content in the article is X-Class, the NV content is Y-Class, etc. and the overall content is Z-Class. Imzadi 1979 → 14:57, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
I think we should continue the practice and not tag national articles for states if they are split into state-detail pages. Imzadi1979 summed it up pretty well. Dough4872 17:24, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
I ask because the idea was that when you created a state-detail article, you were supposed fix up the national article, but historically that didn't happen. Tagging national articles for states with S/D articles would incentivize fixing up everything. –Fredddie™ 21:29, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
The problem with national articles is that, ideally, they're a summary of all of the state-detail articles. However, when the s/d articles aren't up to snuff to the point where basically anyone can do a competent summary, a number of editors have to collaborate by each doing the state(s) they're familiar with, or else you basically need to be an expert on every state the route passes through. I don't think it's really fair to have California's assessment be influenced by how good the Montana section of the I-15 article is, especially since they can't depend on the Montana editors to do their part since there aren't any. Although we'd like people to cross state lines to fix things like that, historically they don't, which is mostly due to the learning curve of finding sources in a new jurisdiction. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:22, 29 June 2024 (EDT)

CheckUser

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Not a controversial discussion at all. Seems pretty clear we should have checkuser, should ensure a minimum of 2 people with the tool, unanimous agreement on its uses and restrictions, should be available to admins upon request, and lastly a 2/3rds vote is the threshold for removal of access to the tool. While I didn't vote and won't to remain uninvolved as I'm closing this, I would inject my personal view that 2/3rds seems too high. We don't have nearly the number of editors with axes to grind as Wikipedia does (fingers crossed it stays that way), so I have to imagine that if 50%+1 agree the access to the tool should be revoked for a user, there was a good reason to vote this way. But 2/3rds it is. Dave (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2024 (EDT)

This is a formal request to install mw:Extension:CheckUser. The last few days have shown me that the tools would be useful. –Fredddie™ 21:06, 24 May 2024 (EDT)

So I think the big thing that we need to discuss is expectations around use. CheckUsering (CUing) spambots is one thing, but CUing real people is another. Plus, we don't want to run afoul of California or the EU, which both have specific privacy regulations.
The current status quo of having to look at server logs (which Scott, Alex, and I can do since we have server access) is not sustainable and provides no filter (in other words, everyone's addresses can be seen). Unfortunately we can't get away from that entirely as CU does not work for the misbehaving web crawlers that impact server performance. But having the tool would help.
But we should work out the following:
  1. who should have access (all admins? all crats? or require a separate discussion?)
  2. when can it be used
    1. anti-spam
    2. to determine abuse of multiple accounts (what level of proof would be required?)
  3. what can be done with the information
    1. I assume we do not want to allow explicit statements about real user = IP onwiki.
    2. Do we have to worry about the same admin blocking the IP right after the named account, implying a connection?
    3. Can the information be given to AARoads Forum admins in certain cases?
  4. do admins who are not CUs have the ability to overturn blocks made by a CU, using CU information? (and maybe the admin policy needs to be further developed)
All big questions that should be addressed. --Rschen7754 21:18, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
Can bureaucrats place a block that administrators cannot undo? –Fredddie™ 21:31, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
I think the issue on enwiki has been that non-admin CUs don't have the ability to review the technical CU information, and with over 1000 admins the chances of one of them making a poor decision were pretty high. Maybe we don't need a formal prohibition as a smaller wiki. --Rschen7754 21:36, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
I get that, but that wasn't the question I asked. I meant it from a technical aspect, similar to the ability to lock a page by permissions level. –Fredddie™ 21:38, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
Not without a code change, no. --Rschen7754 21:38, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
I support the installation of the extension. As an initial grant, I'd add CU to the 'crat rights, but also make it a user right that could be granted to others to fill out a corp of CUs.
CU should be used for anti-spam and socking situations. I wouldn't not support on-wiki disclosure of CU details. I'd say that we could share details between AARW and AARF as needed if there were specific situations that warranted it. Imzadi 1979 → 22:12, 27 May 2024 (EDT)
For full transparency: Scott and I as the active server admins do have the full access to the server logs, which includes IP information (not user agents). Are we doing anything with the information, except for that one investigation, and dealing with read-only web crawlers, no. We're struggling to keep the server in a performant state as it is. We are the only bureaucrats (besides Alex). Will crats be granted full access to the server? It depends on skillset really.
Would I support giving it to all admins? I hesitate a bit because there are a few that are mostly inactive, and because CU does require a certain level of technical expertise. There is also a higher bar of trust, plus the legal issues given below. But I don't know that as a community we are large enough to support another round of rights discussions. --Rschen7754 22:40, 27 May 2024 (EDT)
All the more reason to enlist some aid where needed and appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 23:38, 27 May 2024 (EDT)
We also should address how to handle removal of the tools. If adminship is removed for any reason, then CU should be removed; also, there should be a voting process if the community loses trust. --Rschen7754 14:10, 28 May 2024 (EDT)
Also, for legal reasons I believe we should ask candidates to affirm they are over 18 and over the age of majority in country of residence, and ask that they disclose their country of residence (there are significant issues with giving CU access in places like Iran or even China). --Rschen7754 02:07, 27 May 2024 (EDT)

Poll: CheckUser

Since the discussion has died off, I think we need a poll to get things going again. --Rschen7754 21:26, 23 June 2024 (EDT)

Should the CheckUser extension be enabled on this wiki?

  • Yes, while I was hoping to not go down this route, there was socking a few weeks ago plus anti-spam would help. --Rschen7754 21:28, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
  • Yes—the tool would be useful. Imzadi 1979 → 21:43, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
  • Yes. It would be very useful in case someone decides to sock like what happened earlier. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:44, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
  • Yes. - This tool would be useful to combat sockpuppets and spam. Dough4872 22:05, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
  • Yes for the reasons already listed above. Ideally these tools will be used sparingly. –Fredddie™ 01:16, 29 June 2024 (EDT)
  • Yes. I assume (and hope) that it would be used sparingly. TC (Eli) 02:35, 29 June 2024 (EDT)

Who should have access to the tool?

Please choose all options that you could support (similar to an AARoads:Approval poll). Note that as owner, Alex may also request access to the tool.

  • A: Only those who have passed a voting process (TBD) may have access to the tool.
  • B: Bureaucrats will have access on request. Admins must pass a voting process to have access to the tool.
  • C: All admins will have access on request.

Should there be a minimum number of users with access to the tool?

  • At least 2, similar to Wikimedia, for auditing purposes. --Rschen7754 21:28, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
  • At least 2—preferably more should have it at any given time. Imzadi 1979 → 21:43, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
  • At least 2 - But more should have access in reality. Dough4872 22:05, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
  • At least 3 lest one of the two CUs do any funny business. –Fredddie™ 01:16, 29 June 2024 (EDT)
  • At least 3 - The two non-Alex crats should always have it and at least one non-crat admin should also always have it. (Alex, of course, can also just give it to himself at will.) TC (Eli) 02:35, 29 June 2024 (EDT)

When can the tool be used?

Proposal: the tool can be used to prevent disruption of the AARoads Wiki. This includes anti-spam measures, credible investigations of abusing multiple accounts, investigating potentially compromised accounts.

  • Yes. --Rschen7754 21:28, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
  • Yes—all of these are appropriate uses. Imzadi 1979 → 21:43, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
  • Yes. - These would be good uses. Dough4872 22:05, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
  • Yes. Specific and targeted uses only. –Fredddie™ 01:16, 29 June 2024 (EDT)
  • Yes. "Anti-spam measures" is kind of vague but I trust anyone reasonably expected to be entrusted with the tool to follow the spirit of the law. TC (Eli) 02:35, 29 June 2024 (EDT)

What can be done with the information?

Proposal: disclosure of IP addresses or other information provided by the tool of users (as opposed to spambots) should not be done onwiki or be provided to other parties without the tool, unless required to protect the wiki; in such scenarios, the minimum amount of disclosure required to prevent the disruption should be used. Limited disclosure to AARoads Forum admins, internet service providers (for abuse reporting) or law enforcement can be considered if there is a legitimate purpose for the disclosure.

Removal

Proposal: the tool should be removed on loss of adminship for any reason, or with 2/3 of users at a rights removal discussion supporting removal.

  • Yes, it is malpractice to have a right with no way it can be removed. --Rschen7754 21:28, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
    • I will also post that if proposals B or C pass above - that should there be a rights removal discussion, my understanding is that a new voting process would be needed to re-grant the right and that it should not be re-granted automatically just because the user remains an admin or crat. --Rschen7754 14:16, 24 June 2024 (EDT)
  • Yes—makes sense as well. Imzadi 1979 → 21:43, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
  • Yes - agree with these removal procedures. Dough4872 22:05, 23 June 2024 (EDT)
  • Yes. I would also support electing people to terms (say 6 months) so the ability to use the tools would fall away unless specifically renewed. –Fredddie™ 01:16, 29 June 2024 (EDT)
  • Yes with the same caveat as Rschen. TC (Eli) 02:35, 29 June 2024 (EDT)

Portugal

I propose that we import Portugal (15 articles).

  • A - Motorway / autoestrada
    • These comprise most of the existing articles. The current name is Ax motorway (Portugal) but would be changed to Ax (Portugal).
  • IP - itinero principal
  • IC - itinero complementar
  • N/EN - National road - <400 - have different classes 1st 2nd 3rd
    • Not sure if we go with N or EN for a potential naming convention (similar question with next one)
  • R/ER - Regional road - integrated with national roads but divided by region
  • L - local road - >400 - but might not appear on maps. Probably out of scope.
  • CM - minor road, probably out of scope
  • VE on Madeira
  • Per the past discussions on Speed limits in X articles, [5] would not be imported. --Rschen7754 12:05, 22 June 2024 (EDT)
Strong agree with this as well as Andorra. Si404 (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2024 (EDT)

It does seem that the original authors have left comments preferring N as opposed to EN. --Rschen7754 17:02, 29 June 2024 (EDT)


User:Gspfan

I really think that User:Gspfan needs to "be sat down" and given a stern talking to. This user is making so many horrible edits across the wiki. NewGirl4U (Morriswa on Wikipedia) 12:12, 9 July 2024 (EDT)

This user has been at it again on U.S. Route 17 in South Carolina. NewGirl4U (Morriswa on Wikipedia) 11:42, 10 July 2024 (EDT)
the article was a stub.
That may very well be, but spelling errors, bad grammar, and citing unreliable sources is very bad practice. NewGirl4U (Morriswa on Wikipedia) 15:47, 10 July 2024 (EDT)

The accounts will be blocked shortly. --Rschen7754 01:16, 14 July 2024 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.aaroads.com/w/index.php?title=AARoads:The_Interchange/Archive_2&oldid=379019"