User talk:Imzadi1979

Welcome

You've been around since the beginning, but I thought it would be appropriate to test the welcome template's new state-switching ability on you. :P

Welcome to the AARoads Wiki!

This wiki is a specialist encyclopedia of roads articles written by your fellow roadgeeks, and we're glad you've decided to join us!

Now that you're here, we have a few important things to tell you about. Our main discussion page is The Interchange. This is where we make decisions about how this wiki functions. We have a Discord as well that you might want to join.

We have a cleanup page where you can learn more how we're improving the collection of imported articles for our use. You can also report technical errors related to the article import process on that page.

The rules of the road are really simple. In short, follow the golden rule and you'll be fine; we wouldn't want you to be cited for a moving violation. While contributing, please keep in mind that we currently focus our articles on highways in the United States and Canada, including state or provincial highways and major county roads. (To express interest in adding other countries, see AARoads:International). We have the Annex here for additional content, like the list of longest state highways in the United States.

Once again, welcome to the AARoads Wiki! We hope you enjoy it here! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:53, 21 September 2023 (EDT)

Category:Lists of Scenic Byways

Half the content is not in a nationwide Scenic Byways/similar category, so removing this category as redundant while not filling a category that it is apparently redundant to is neither helpful to me in explaining why you've reverted my edits as being redundant, nor the wiki in that stuff reverts to being poorly categorised.

The category name I chose for this category of lists is consistent with most of the other names in Category:Lists of roads in the United States, which has 27 states covered by 'Lists of roads in' subcategories and a few national 'Lists of <type of roads>' subcategories. It looks to me to be the de facto way we're categorising lists of roads, even though there's still quite a lot of exceptions.

Currently categorisation is a mess left over from the other place and needs sorting. I'm fine with a different naming system - as long as we're both consistent and thorough about it. I'll put something on The Interchange about it. Si404 (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2023 (EDT)

A few thoughts. One, the term "scenic byways" shouldn't be capitalized when used as a generic term. That's a minor quibble though. Two, not all state byway schemes are "scenic byways". In Michigan, some of the Pure Michigan Byways are scenic, some are historic and some are recreational, so there isn't a 1:1 relationship between the term "scenic byway" and a state classification. Third, I don't want to see us overcategorizing pages. To that end, I'm not sure we need a category specifically for "lists of X" when we have categories on the X. We run the risk of making things too complicated in the category trees. Imzadi 1979 → 07:30, 16 October 2023 (EDT)

To be honest. I liked the changes si404 made by adding categories to the list of scenic highways in x pages. The value I see in the change is, while all the Pure Michigan byways are tagged in that category, there is no way to navigate from the scenic byways in Michigan to, say, the scenic byways in Colorado using categories. Currently that leap from Michigan's system to Colorado's system is made via the navbox Template:Scenic Byways. One could argue that we don't need both the navbox and the categories, and that's fine. But I don't see the harm in having both either. I agree over categorization is a concern, and if it is decided this is a frivolous use of categories so be it. However, IMHO there's far more frivolous categories on far more pages than this.Dave (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2023 (EDT)

User:Gspfan

Since you, User:Fredddie, and many other editors are much better at editing and verifying content than I am, could y'all please look into whether User:Gspfan's edits on this wiki are really valid? If not, they obviously need to be reverted. If they are really bad, there might be cause for blocking. I'm not trying to stir up trouble or cause any kind of edit war (although this user has already been doing that). I just want this wiki to be the best it can be. I might be able to help out, but I can only edit on mobile right now, and only intermittently. Besides, editing on here is not like on Wikipedia. I currently don't have any user-assisted scripts to help me edit faster. NewGirl4U (Morriswa on Wikipedia) 10:01, 12 July 2024 (EDT)

Deletions

Why were some of the redirects that I started deleted? They were legitimate redirects. I'm asking partly because no reason was given in the deletions. NewGirl4U (Morriswa on Wikipedia) 18:19, 5 October 2024 (EDT)

How is U.S. Route 385 (1926) in New Mexico legitimate? –Fredddie™ 19:23, 5 October 2024 (EDT)

Since the original US 385 used to travel in Texas and New Mexico, it is legitimate. NewGirl4U (Morriswa on Wikipedia) 06:30, 6 October 2024 (EDT)

What Fredddie said. That's not even formatted in a way that someone would properly use. (We don't put disambiguation in the middle of an article title, ever.) With as small of a wiki as we have, we don't have as much need for as many redirects here, so creating ones that will never be used is just a waste of resources. Imzadi 1979 → 08:16, 6 October 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, I do not see why any redirect beyond U.S. Route 385 in New Mexico and various versions of that specifically would be legitimate. Markkos1992 (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2024 (EDT)

I thought all U.S. Highways were to have a state-specific link for each state it exists in. Since the current US 385 (which exists in the same two states as the previous one) already has the U.S. Route 385 in Texas and U.S. Route 385 in New Mexico links, the disambiguator should be inserted to differentiate between the two highways. It's been done for a long time on Wikipedia, so I thought that same process was being used here. NewGirl4U (Morriswa on Wikipedia) 09:33, 6 October 2024 (EDT)

I stand corrected about one state. The current highway doesn't exist in New Mexico. NewGirl4U (Morriswa on Wikipedia) 09:38, 6 October 2024 (EDT)

See w:U.S. Route 385 (1926) in Texas. NewGirl4U (Morriswa on Wikipedia) 10:27, 6 October 2024 (EDT)

Just being on enwiki doesn't make it Correct and Proper. –Fredddie™ 14:03, 6 October 2024 (EDT)

Some former U.S. Highways have all of the information on one consolidated page. For the others, how are users supposed to find the information? The state-specific pages/redirects help guide them to that information. Since the original US 385 entered New Mexico (and the current doesn't), the "U.S. Route 385 in New Mexico" link works just fine. However, since both US 385s have entered Texas (and the information isn't always listed on the current page, the "U.S. Route 385 in Texas" and 'U.S. Route 385 (1926) in Texas" links are both valid. The original highway became part of U.S. Route 87, by the way. NewGirl4U (Morriswa on Wikipedia) 14:41, 6 October 2024 (EDT)

I guess we have to spell it out for you since you don't seem to be comprehending what's being said. U.S. Route 385 in Texas (1926) is how it should be. Disambiguators go at the end. –Fredddie™ 15:15, 6 October 2024 (EDT)

And that's assuming we even need the title/redirect in the first place. Wikipedia uses a lot more redirects than we probably ever need to create here. Unlike Wikipedia, we have a bit more finite server resources here, so maybe we don't need to create scores of redirects that aren't and won't be in use. Imzadi 1979 → 15:46, 6 October 2024 (EDT)