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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Testing the code

I assume we want to start with a small WP? That way if things get messed up it's not as bad to fix. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma has about 70 pages right now, not sure if that's small enough or not. I'd want someone else to rate them anyway, as I've written the majority of them and so don't want to have a conflict of interest. —Scott5114↗ 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm working on WP:ILSR at the moment. The hard part was figuring out which categories to set up, and thankfully, that only needs to be done once, ever. It's a good thing there's preview, and a lot of code in <pre> sections. —Rob (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Does the bot work? And which templates have been modified? I created U.S. Route 101 Alternate (Washington) and U.S. Route 97 Alternate (Washington) and rated them as stub class, let's see if the bot finds it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Good idea about the conflict of interest... I'm rating mine mostly Start or B-class anyways. Some stubs. Yes, it all works, but the updates happen once a day at about 0300 UTC and are done by a bot. —Rob (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The bot found the WI articles. I've been rating most of them as stubs as they only have about 3-5 lines and an infobox. A bunch at the beginning are starts and a couple are Bs. --master_sonLets talk 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the rating feature to Template:NC State Highways WikiProject for WP:NCSH, but I'm not rating anything until the admins at WP:SRNC accept our convention. --TinMan 03:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of the naming poll...

Let's not assess any state that could get their convention changed until they've moved, since the page moves will mess up the system. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, Wisconsin got added. What do we do now? Manually delete the entries before we move the articles? Illinois is probably fine to do, and so is Michigan, and Maryland and Minnesota too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You have me to thank - I mean yell at - for that. I thought about that before doing so - I do not think it will affect anything outside the log, and the bot should recognize (see ROB's comment below) --master_sonLets talk 00:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it'll break the system, as it's completely automated. The log might reflect the renaming of articles, that's about it. I'm in particular a fan of rating as many as I can get around to. —Rob (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I just rated Iowa, which has a proposed change ... oh well :) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Importance

I have implemented the importance portion of the assessment scale to the Texas articles. The appropriate categories and subcategories have been created: Category:U.S. road transport articles by importance --Holderca1 19:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Split

As this grows and spreads to the other projects, there is going to be a huge amount of articles involved. I recommend that these be split into subcategories. This will help keep the categories to a reasonable size and will help those of a particular project find their articles. As long as they are subcats of the main category, it will not affect the total count on the assessment graphic. --Holderca1 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I figured out a way to make this work both ways, I have the article go into two seperate categories, one for US Roads, which is counted by the bot towards the assessment, and one for Texas highways, so it is easier to find the articles within a state project. --Holderca1 16:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

POV issues

Isn't the whole idea of "rating" an article POV? Espcially considering what you might consider A-class I consider a lousy stub? Seems a pointless waste of our rescources that could be better spent on writing articles. Gateman1997 05:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can't rate anything above a B without going through a peer review process and being granted a higher rating. So no, I don't see any POV involved. --Holderca1 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
True, but that still doesn't answer my point about how is this not POV to "rate" an article. Is the rating not subjective? Is subjectivity not inherently POV? Just seems like a waste of resouces and time to me that would be better spent writing articles. Gateman1997 01:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, because you haven't made your point clear. One person doesn't rate an article, maybe you should look into the process for peer review, GA nominations, FA nominations before you discount it entirely. In my opinion quality trumps quantity. But if you prefer "lousy stubs" over quality articles, that is your business. Also, WP:NPOV only applies to articles, so the policy does not apply here anyway. --Holderca1 02:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes I rate articles depending on the mood I am in, but it can be changed and modified by other users. Comments can be left too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Another thing to add on to this, if you find an article is rated a B class, but you think it is a start class, by all means demote it. Ensure that you put comments on the talk page as to what you think this article needs to justify its rating. But what one thinks is good and bad is totally up to the person, for example, I will not put an article up for GA nomination before it has a map and pictures. But that is just me. --Holderca1 16:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

NA comments

Credit to User:Alai for resolving the issue regarding pages classified as non-articles having comments. However, the new code that he posted on the project page attached to this didn't make it to all of the WikiProject templates. So if your state hasn't fixed yours, please fix it... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Stub categories getting overwhelmed

Some editors do not like to ever take out articles out of stub categories. Even when they get big. They actively fight to keep the stub tag in there. A stub is a short article. As per WP:Stub if the total length exceeds ten sentences, it is not a stub unless it is a complicated topics. Roads are not complicated! --- Skapur 05:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Stubs and stub classifications are not the same thing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone object if...

I used AWB to assess the stub articles (with stub templates and all) as stubs? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Importance scale

Do we want to set up the importance scale relative to the whole nation (Interstates have high importance, U.S. routes and important state have mid-importance, and low-importance state and county routes have low-importance) or do we want the scale relative to each subproject (important routes have high importance, and so on down the scale)? I'd prefer having it by a project-by-project basis, so that I can look at the worklist and have the status of OK-3, 9, 11, 33, and 51 (and others) at the top of the list, followed by other, lower-importance routes. I'd like everyone else's opinion, though. —Scott5114↗ 20:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer consistency so that the system is easier to understand (so the system does not switch when you go to another WikiProject). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
This would still be consistent, it's merely the scope that's different (i.e. highways are graded as important if they are important to the project they belong to, rather than to the nation as a whole.) I think Texas is using this method currently, Texas State Highway Beltway 8 is currently High-importance. —Scott5114↗ 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's hard for an out-of-stater to rate importance-that's a concern, especially if the local SH WP does not want to work at rating. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, the importance scale should be constant across all WPs (relative to the U.S. as a whole), as this is the U.S. Roads assessment system. Now, if each project had its own assessment system, that'd be a different story. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
But if it's the "U.S. Roads" assessment system, why is it being put in the state WP tag on the talk page? It just seems pointless to me to "rate" importance when we're not actually rating at all – the only thing being taken into account is what class of highway it is, which is easy enough to see from the title of the article.
It seems odd to me that CR 527 and CR 537 in New Jersey are rated low-importance when they span the entire state, while NJ 13 is rated mid-importance when it's half a mile long, unsigned, and no one knows it exists. -- NORTH talk 04:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Since this is the US Roads assessment system, this is being rated in accordance to its importance with the rest of the country. Low is for county routes and Mid is for state routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, but that doesn't answer my question. If it's a "U.S. Roads" assessment system, why is it being put in a tag for the state wikiproject. Alternatively, if someone from the state wikiproject comes along and notices an "incorrect" assessment (i.e. the one above), can they change it, or will it just be reverted?
Also, my second question... what's the point of rating them if all the rating is doing is saying what class of highway it is? -- NORTH talk 04:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Since that's the only highways WP tag on there... also such changes will be reverted.
The point is so that we can see how urgently the article needs to be revised and edited at a glance. This way, we can see how an individual project is doing and how we are doing as a whole. WP:1.0 also uses this data as well. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
But see, that's the problem. CR 527 needs far more urgent attention than NJ 13. Assessing them arbitrarily like this is pointless. It might be good as a starting point, but if you can't allow someone with more knowledge about the individual roads to tweak it, then the system's completely bogus. -- NORTH talk 04:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the Texas WP was first subproject to rate importance, so I will provide input on what we have been doing. What we did was put each class of highways at a minimum importance level (i.e. Interstates = high, U.S. and State = mid, Farm/Ranch = low). Now these are the minimum, nothing is stopping it from being promoted to a higher importance, for example, Texas State Highway Beltway 8 would of been a mid importance article, but since it is a major freeway in the Houston metro area, it was promoted to High importance. I also take exception to "also such changes will be reverted." I would think someone within the subproject would know a heck of a lot more about an articles importance than someone unfamiliar with the state's highways. --Holderca1 15:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Rcshen knows I'm not for ratings or assessments, but if you're going to do them they shouldn't just be static based on an article's subject. They should reflect the true status of both that hwy and the article. And they should definitely earn promotion if someone with more intimate knowledge thinks they should be promoted or if the article improves to a point warranting it. Gateman1997 16:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Part 2

On the Texas WP template, the row displaying the importance rating reads, "This article has been rated as **-importance within WikiProject Texas State Highways." This is fine as the articles are fed into a Texas state highway importance cat. The problem is that the articles are also fed into the U.S. road importance category. As discussed above, the rating for an article within a project and its rating on a national level is not equivalent. Question is, what should be done? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The importance rating in Texas follows the above convention for the most part, Interstates are rated High, US and State highways are rated Mid, and Farm/Ranch to Market Roads are rated Low. With the exception here and there for the more important roads such as the Beltway in Houston as mentioned above is bumped up to High importance. --Holderca1 14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Part 3

Where do bannered routes (like New York State Route 52 Business) fall on the importance scale? Are they rated the same as their banner-less parent (New York State Route 52) or are they bumped down a notch? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are all Interstates high but all U.S. Highways mid?

U.S. Route 50 seems somewhat more important than Interstate 180 (Wyoming); why is the latter higher importance than the former? Should it be? --NE2 10:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that importance ratings should not be tied to highway system class. See also the discussion in the section above. The current system is good as a starting point but editors familiar with how a specific highway is actually used should be allowed to change these ratings without being reverted. My view is that importance is related to how necessary is it for an encyclopedia to have articles on this specific road. Some county highways might be more important than some very short interstate highways because of the way they are viewed by the community or by their treatment in secondary sources. --Polaron | Talk 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The system that is currently in place was designed so that we would be able to give quick and dirty assessments to every article. Now that every article, at least ones with a quality assessment, has been assessed in importance in one way or another, I do agree that the system is quite flawed. As another argument to support the two above, Interstate 315, an unsigned interstate, is ranked the same as Interstate 95 and higher than U.S. Route 1. One notable exception exists to the current system: U.S. Route 66 is ranked as Top-importance.
The question is then what should the criteria be for the lower three classes? Remember, due to the setup of the assessment system, the criteria must consider the importance of the road on a national scale. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to say that if even a part of a road is on the National Highway System, then it needs to be at least High-importance, because almost all tractor-trailers are limited to them. Because of the tractor-trailer restriction, more truckers (I think) will probably be looking at the NHS roads a lot more. (→vishwin60 - new age roads) 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's a summary of what was discussed on IRC (not for authoritative discussion, but to develop ideas):
  • NHS roadways should be high-imp. only if they are expressways, freeways or limited-access. Alternatively, major routes that are part of the NHS (like NY 5) are high-imp. Other routes are mid-imp.
  • By default, state highways are mid-imp.
  • Coast-to-coast highways are high-imp. Border-to-border was undiscussed, but these could probably be high-imp as well.
  • County routes and bannered routes should almost always be low-imp., except in rare occasions like US 90 Business in New Orleans, CR 97 in Suffolk County, New York (expressway with an SPUI interchange), and CR 522 in Osceola County, Florida (tolled expressway).
  • Top-imp. was undiscussed. Most likely, it would remain the same.
Further comments are welcome. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, agree that border to border should be high as well, don't want to be biased towards east-west highways. :) --Holderca1 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I-5 is only north-south border to border Interstate... Interstate 95 would be Mid under this system. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
True, but I don't think the border-to-border and coast-to-coast guidelines are meant to be taken literally with no exceptions. There should be some flexibility in there, as U.S. Route 6 is, in my view, a coast-to-coast route although it ends in eastern California. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Umm, I-95 would be a border to coast highway, since it doesn't have a southern border to even go to, lets use a little common sense on this. Lets not forget I-75 which is similar to I-95, they both hit the Canadian border and the only way they can go any further south is if they build a bridge to Cuba. I-15 just misses it by 20 miles and I-35 misses it by about a hundred miles. That is close enough in my book, since the west-east coast to coast highways don't all go right up to the waters edge. One such example is I-90, it ends about a hundred miles east of the Pacific. --Holderca1 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to have a list of NHS routes handy. I would imagine that NHS routes are pretty high in number so I would question some of the smaller ones. Plus, a state highway that's not on the NHS that runs concurrent with a NHS route is considered on the NHS for that duration (i.e. WIS 23 and I-39 (WI)/US 51. To get consideration for this I would strongly suggest a route be NHS for the entire route at minimum. 3d interstates should be mid-importance - unless that 3di is a vital link in the system (say NY's I-390, PA's I-476 (NE Ext PA Tpk) or maybe even I-294 (Tri-State Tollway) around Chicago). At minimum I would say Interstates 5, 15, 25, 35, 55, 65, 75 and 95 for north-south and 10, 20, 30, 40, 70, 80 and 90 for E-W routes are high in my book. I-85 is too short and a diagonal route, I-25 maybe could be on it. US routes stand a good chance of having high importance if they don't follow interstates too much or are NHS routes (I think most US Routes are) (US 93 would be a nice example here). master sonT - C 01:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that is that all interstates are NHS routes, including 3di. --Holderca1 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The FHWA has maps of the NHS. I looked at Virginia and it seems to be a reasonable system of main roads, most of them four-lane divided, at least outside urban areas. I don't think we should include the "Major STRAHNET Connectors" or "Intermodal Connectors"; those are spurs to military facilities and intermodal transportation facilities. --NE2 11:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I had found the maps, but I couldn't find a listing anywhere, that would make it easier. --Holderca1 12:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That was a concern I had in the back of my mind regarding using the NHS as one of the factors determining a route's importance. Perhaps the NHS isn't the best way to go. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, should we make a list of roads in the National Highway System, or is this too "crufty" for the encyclopedia? I'm going to start at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/NHS. --NE2 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't do a list, a cat would probably be more appropriate. --Holderca1 12:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
A cat would have many pages (as in many hundreds of articles) and would not make it clear which portion is NHS. I think, if we are to have something listing the NHS, a list would be better. --NE2 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

New importance system

As an extension of the last section, and an attempt to make discussion more organized, I'm going to break this down by importance level. Ideas for what should be in each section are welcome, and comments on those ideas are welcomed as well. Once we get enough ideas on what should be in each section, we can start hammering out the details.

I know some of you already expressed your opinions above, but if you could repost them here, that'd be great. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Top

  • Same as old system. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • N/C master sonT - C 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Top Routes
    • Interstate: E-W: 10, 20, 40, 64, 70, 80, 90, 94; N-S: 5, 15, 25, 35, 55, 65, 75, 81, 95
    • US: even: 2, 6, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 52, 60, 62, 66, 70, 80, 90; odd: 1, 11, 21, 25, 27, 31, 41, 51, 61, 65, 67, 71, 81, 85, 91, 93, 95, 99, 101 master sonT - C 22:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • NOTE: Think before the interstates for the US routes master sonT - C 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Did you mean to include I-85? --NE2 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I doubt he did, and I believe he was justified in excluding it. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Why? I can understand excluding I-30 and I-45, but I-85 is a major route, connecting the Northeast with a number of large Southern cities. --NE2 05:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • All routes of significant length and importance to extremely major cities (I-5, I-95, I-90, etc). I wouldn't include routes such as I-64, I-94, etc, because of their limited coverage, so to speak. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

High

  • Major national routes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think almost all national routes and major major state routes should be in here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I think all national routes should be high. What's the definition of "major major"? --Son 20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Routes carrying NHS status that are not defined in "TOP"
    • All 2D interstates
    • 3D Interstates that connect cities (i.e. I-380 in NY)
    • US/state Routes that don't get overshadowed by interstates (i.e. US 87 - which pretty much is along or concurrent with I-25) master sonT - C 23:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I disagree that all state routes that are part of the NHS should be high. I definitely don't consider NY 332 to be high-importance to US roads. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would include 3 digit interstates that serve major metropolitan areas with the exception of those that aren't signed (i.e. I-635 and I-820 that serve the Dallas-Forth Worth Metroplex would be included, but I-345 which is unsigned would fall to a mid). --Holderca1 23:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I-595 (MD) is a very major road; its unsigned status doesn't make it less so. --NE2 00:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
      • That article would get a high rating based on my below comment, but since that comment pretty much covers those unsigned portions, I am going to strike that out. --Holderca1 11:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also include any US, state highway, or toll road that is a freeway in a major metropolitan area, examples would include Florida's Turnpike, Texas State Highway Beltway 8, Arizona State Route 101. --Holderca1 23:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mid

  • Occasional county routes; all state highways. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Extremely short Interstates and U.S. Routes could be here too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • How short is "extremely short"? --Son 20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • All 3D intracity interstates, all remaining US and major state routes (determine this by state) any state route that is a freeway/expressway should be Mid At the Minimum. County routes on Freeways. master sonT - C 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You are contradicting yourself here, you state that all NHS routes that don't fall in the top should be high, but then you state that 3di intracity interstates should be here, they are part of the NHS as well. --Holderca1 23:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Business Interstate routes that are freeways for their entire length. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think everything that has a freeway section, where that freeway is not independently covered (for instance the freeway on NY 9A in New York City is covered by Henry Hudson Parkway), should be at least mid, and almost always high. --NE2 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with mid; not high. Do you really believe every freeway is of high-importance nationally? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Probably at least every intercity freeway, every beltway, and every radial freeway that connects an intercity freeway or beltway to a downtown area. This is in part analogous to the business loop freeways in the states that don't use business loops or assign them to freeways. For example, in New York City, the Merritt Parkway/Hutchinson River Parkway would be high, but the Interborough Parkway would be mid. Examples of major radial freeways are the Southwest Freeway in Houston or the North Central Expressway in Dallas. Essentially everything that would be used for intercity travel or by large amounts of commuters. Freeways are major engineering projects, and our articles on them should be more important than intercity surface roads. --NE2 00:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Low

Other

  • Implement the list-class, used on other projects, for lists of highways. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Where would you put a highway such as I-69? Although as the highway currently stands it is not all that important of route, but with all the planning, criticisms, concerns, etc... as well as its significance once completed elevate it quite a bit. --Holderca1 23:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What about bridges, tunnels, and ferries? Auto trails? "Foo in state" articles? Historic turnpikes? Named interchanges? --NE2 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Bridges, tunnels, ferries: low, except for extreme cases (Woodrow Wilson Bridge comes to mind). Auto trails, state detail articles, turnpikes: varies by road. Interchanges: mostly low. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)