Knowledge talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 8

4080:

sources. This is just for your information.” I totally welcome if any editor edits or contributes to Wiki but am offended with the way he has responded, as if anyhow I was related to Agra Lucknow Expressway and by doing this he will probably take revenge, totally indicates that he is engaged in edit war. Also, there is already a section of controversy on article “Agra Lucknow Expressway”, I don’t understand what he meant to express by saying that he will create criticism page with sources, and at the same time removing criticism page of another expressway article. What I supposedly assume is that both expressways are built by different Chief Ministers of different political parties, and somehow or the other he has been violating Wiki neutrality guidelines with his edits being kind of sockpuppetry towards a political party. Secondly, on Agra Lucknow Expressway article he has been continuously editing the mentioned source info and presenting it biasly by adding his own views. Need your help, as his engagement in edit war has been far more number of times, he has been continuously broken the three revert rule and rarely engaged in discussions on talk page. Any user would be far disappointed with such behaviour from fellow editors. Kindly look into this. Thank you!

1960:, the MoS section on "road junction lists" that details how such sections should look. I agree that the icons are meaningless, and the table needs a good cleaning/overhaul. As for the rest of the article, the best practices that have developed for US roads involve the "Big Three": route description, history and junction list. There are other sections that get used from time to time, but almost all good highway articles will have some prose section that describes the route of the roadway along with the landscape (natural and artificial) plus a prose section that details the historical development of the subject. The article then naturally concludes with the junction list table before the standard appendix sections (see also, references, external links). 144: 4586:. I have imposed a long-term block on the range however it is possible they may also have operated before that or concurrently using another IP/range. I would encourage anyone who works on or watches any road sign related articles to be alert to possible vandalism either past or potentially in the future. This vandal was highly prolific and almost all of their last 500 edits going back years were disruptive. I have reverted all but a few about which I am uncertain. I hope the block will stop them, but I am afraid they will try to find a way around it. 3813: 3807: 31: 2380: 332: 3204: 4029: 5220: 4833: 4764: 2589:

the Google Maps driving directions (in the satellite view) of US 8 in the state. The first citation verifies the official routing as published by the agency that owns and maintains that section of highway. The second citation gives the ability to zoom in for specific details that wouldn't appear on the paper map, and more importantly, it shows the landscape for the physical description attributes of the environment surrounding the roadway.

5651: 1993: 2697: 5646: 3884: 2706: 4801: 4691: 2026: 3623:

years ago... but coming back in having missed the show, I can't find any user friendly instructions that are along the lines of "Save place from Google Earth, upload file (convert if necessary), place template in article for map and/or links to map services." Beyond that is also the separate utility of an infobox map, and an interactive map that contains historical routes and information (

4485:, where there previously was none, and I was thinking of standardising the route itinerary list to something similar for all E-roads (except the predominantly Norwegian & Swedish ones where there isn't really much of an alternative numbering system to denote). Any objections? (Please, if I'm doing something wrong, I've never worked in this project before so feel free to call me out!) 785: 1792:, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time. 4352:, for the list of previously-good links which now link to that list instead of to their intended target. It appears from their editing history that they did a lot of moving of road articles around that time, so there may be vast numbers of other incorrect links now in the system. I note further that the same editor created 5311:] of "major junctions" in many articles. Their view is that if the joining road is an A-class road, then by definition that makes it major. My view is that only national routes are notable enough to be listed, but as a minimum the joining road has to be notable enough to have its own article. But, apart from 5070:

and verify if that's how it's supposed to be done. Surely the infobox is not supposed to be a wall of traffic signs, and is supposed to be a collection of wikilinked text, right? And by some inclusion criteria, right? Do we list every highway that traverses every city limits, either in the infobox or

2933:

I've never seen a problem with citations in the infobox, or the lead for that matter. Generally we cite the first occurrence of a fact so if the first occurrence is the infobox, why not cite it there? It does seem inconsistent if we cite some figures in the infobox and not others. either way, I don't

2561:

Just a quick question to any informed members of Project Highway. Concerning: Structure of Articles: Route Description. Any suggestion on how one has referenced that section in other articles as most descriptions of the routes come either from map books or open source mapping sites? Bots keep placing

1429:

Rather than have a hard requirement of supports, I'd like to see a hybrid system based on having quality reviews. By that, I mean that when someone reviews an article, another editor comes along and reviews the review; mostly to judge that the reviewer isn't phoning in a review or isn't being unfair

2588:

for an example. That highway passes through three separate states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. For the paragraphs about US 8 in Minnesota, I cited the text I was writing to the then-current edition of the Minnesota state highway map published by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and

1590:

page that the Swiss motorway vignette for cars is the most expensive transit vignette in Europe, given that everybody else offers one for durations shorter than a year and that at prices less than 40 CHF. Since the claim is doubtlessly true and arguably interesting, can anyone help me find some more

1467:

Could you clarify your proposal? My concern is that we would either have to elect a delegate like FAC does, or have some objective way of determining when a review is done. I don't think my original proposal is that different from this one - I see the 4 net supports as more of a "move to close" sort

3292:

content in Knowledge, I'm working now on adding the stubs for all the national routes in the country! Then I will continue editing those files through the years, and I'm preparing a CSV file to add all of them to Wikidata. I saw some edits reverting adding an user to the members of this task force,

2763:

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you?

2455:

to get rid of the red link; however, the text that the template generates is a bit of a misnomer, as Hokkaido is a special category of prefecture in Japan and by name already has the idea of a prefecture built into its name. That's why the article exists simply as Hokkaido. So if the template could

1613:

and will be removed. In fact, comparing the annual vignette price in Switzerland (currently about €34) to the range in the linked vignette article, you could argue that, despite there not being a shorter-term option, the Swiss vignette is among the cheapest in Europe. Therefore, calling it the most

2957:

This is nothing more than being consistent with the policy that citations are not usually required in the lead, as that info is in the body of the article too. For the articles I've worked on, the source used for the length is also usually used in the junctions list. So the only scenario I can see

2861:

is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of

1485:

I don't think that electing delegates is the way to go; flexible rules work better than hard and fast rules, in my opinion. My idea of reviewing the review wouldn't be too far from spotting a terrible review at GAN and calling out the reviewer. A review should be a discussion anyway, not simply a

1009:

about ACR, and there are several stale reviews (on the order of months and a few over a year), and we've hit a record low number of FAs this year, so I think we should reevaluate how we are handling ACR, to be more realistic with both the decreased number of reviewers, and the road projects' other

5383:

Changed the roundabout sign description from "Roundabout" to "Circle road" and "Detour" (maybe took the sign pictogram too literally, or maybe due to they translated too literally from their native language). Roundabout (or traffic circle) is a type of junction, not literally a road going just in

3622:

I see mapframe is used, although I cannot find any documentation on how to go about using it (ie. how can I convert KML to GeoJSON and get maps that display. The old javascript KML map display in articles is completely antiquated and ignores linestyles. Again maybe this was all ironed out several

4074:

has been continuously and constantly removing sourced data from the page. In the past, he has several times, inspite of being notified thoroughly of the edit war rulings of Knowledge on his talk page, constantly broken 3 revert rule and engaged in edit war, while reverting and editing referenced

2592:

The same pairing of citations occurs with the Wisconsin and Michigan sections: then-current official paper map from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation paired with Google Maps for Wisconsin, and the then-current official paper map from the Michigan Department of Transportation paired with

1203:

Similar to the above; while FAC has sometimes accepted our spotchecks, I don't see a need to do this in house. Of course, if reviewers are concerned, they can do a spotcheck on their own initiative. Also, the "once a year" means that practically every ACR gets a spotcheck since only one ACR per

5471:

I don't think this is an LTA, based on consistent typos, letter case errors, and using words that doesn't make any sense, like "Lokomitif railroad Crossing Ahead ", "Doubletipel / Multiplayer railroad Crossing ", and "No entry Mopped", which I think the operator of this IP range isn't a native

4079:

which was sourced and put in by an unknown editor, I just restored the data citing unexplained sourced info removal, he has yet again responded with reverting, and mentioned this in my talk page, ”Good to see u back here. Tomorrow I will create criticism section in Agra-Lucknow Expressway with

1606: 247:

which is a bit more standard to use, puts the map in a frame, etc, and provides a link to a full screen 'maplink'. It may not be ideal for highways maps, but may be useful for particular locations, where editors want show a map with locator marks and labels. There are some example uses in the

5187:

I've brought up this issue a few times at WT:Cities but never got enough momentum to make it a project standard. The shields and other unnecessary garbage tacked onto already long infoboxes aren't exactly helpful to readers. Mentioning the basic highways should be done in the lead and in the

4195: 5071:

in prose? Where are the criteria or a good general small-town example and a metro example? What are the valid uses for these SVGs of road signs? I would assume it's only for identifying them on their own articles, one time. Thank you very much, and I hope you can bring in a new user. —

1763:

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template

575:, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Highways, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at 1853:

HI, Need help in consense on having standard naming for NHs which have old numbering system. Government of India changed NH naming in 2010. There are few national highway article which have old numbers. We have to follow a standard pattern for the naming. See the category

3609:

So I've been pretty absent most of the last 5 years, and for the most part missed the aftermath of Google trashing yet another immensely useful innocuous tool. I'm not sure what the preferred method is now or if any thought has gone into ways of moving forward given that:

3346:

Hello, I would like to ask about the project's stance on traffic signs in country X articles. Does the project want to include every signs possible (in the corresponding country) or just show examples of every major one? If it's the first case, I wonder if it constitutes

2958:

where this is a problem is where the citation for the length in the infobox is unique to the citations for the length in the junctions list. That's a small number of articles, usually national articles, and as AusssieLegend says can be handled on a case by case basis.

653:

that list looks good to me. I checked and all the items in that list (except for the browselinks one at the end) match the pattern '/shield_', '/link_', and '/abbr_'. once all of those are deleted we can re-examine to see if there are more that can be deleted.

3159:

on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in highways, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. Of course, this is an addition to the IRC channel we already have, that channel won't be going

4682: 4061: 1334:

over the years and we need to get back to basics. It allows us to basically set a sliding standard of how much we will review, depending on how experienced the editor is, and to drive-by oppose if we feel a nomination needs more scrutiny.

4792: 1068:. I can't think of a time when FAC has accepted one of these instead of doing their own. I see no need to do these in house. Of course, we should always be eyeballing the reference list to make sure self-published sources aren't used. -- 981:

have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

2980:

Does the scope of the project include articles about major incidents that occurred on highways, such as pile-ups, planes, trains etc. crashing onto them, bombings, police stopping vehicles & finding a load of corpses in them etc.?

3374:

things are that way. That being said, I think the pages listing every single traffic sign are better suited for Commons. I don't necessarily have a problem with an article about the document that describes the road signs, like the

2165: 5346:

describe the sign pictogram, rather its legal meaning, which is often incorrect or meaningless (and may mislead readers, since it may mean more or different in legal sense, rather than just what the pictogram means). (Examples:

2256: 1804:. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals. 3617:

The proliferation of online GIS services, including ESRI webmaps, Geohub, etc., that are compatible with KML and shapefile datapoints. I have no idea if these are compatible with GeoJSON, but perhaps there is some intermediary

1636:, there is a random "t" showing up below the header text. I've checked a few random articles and the problem seems to be unique, and not within the article. Can someone perhaps see if there is a misplaced "t" in the coding for 539: 1873:

I agree that the article names should be consistent, but I do not like the double disambiguator that is in use (India, old numbering). I would suggest renaming the old highway articles to "Former National Highway <number:

4282:

So... should all the other service area articles (with those two exceptions) be moved to "X MSA", or should the eleven that were so moved be moved back to "X services"? There certainly should be *some* consistency here, IMO.

1933:

section specifically is half nonsense. The "meaning" part is mostly wrong (seems like a bad google translate) and the "type" part to me means nothing. I have no idea what those pictures mean. Would appreciate advice on this.

3435: 372: 5232: 99:

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at

2914:

now discourages citing facts in infoboxes when the same information is repeated in the article. Is this something we should consider? It would be a change across a lot of articles that are already FA/A/GA, for example.

1430:

to the nominator. Sometimes one long review will be sufficient, other times three shorter reviews will be needed. I think most of us who have reviewed articles in the past know what to look for in a quality article. –

4288: 2274: 1855: 175: 405: 3443: 3436: 2600:, I had to use the map in the Rand McNally atlas to cite some details that MDOT omits from its paper map. Other details are cited to specific sources as appropriate because not all information will appear on maps. 727:, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the 395: 415: 4845: 1753:

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

5230:, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the 4142: 4089: 2205: 458: 3455: 5086:

The graphics of highway markers are used in many places on Knowledge, not just on their respective articles. The big revert is correct because we typically have one article on a state's highway system (i.e.

3874: 4815: 3518:

I've encountering an issue where the map in the infobox displays the route in while previewing an edit, but as soon as the edit is saved the route does not show up - just the base map. This is happening at

3423:, but it occurs to me that the property would be of interest to editors outside the U.S. as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions folks may have about the proposal or how the property could be used. – 269: 4742:

All redlinks regarding Highways in Namibia have now been turned blue! All pages will be stubs so any additional help would be very much appreciated. Just thought I'd share this with the Project community!

3587: 1983: 425: 5606:

I have been wondering this for a while too. Whenever I have come across something like this, I just make it look the same as the rest of infobox, however that does not reflect on the real-world. Thanks,

362: 4732: 822:

Can someone here validate my feeling that the above article's table is a mess/not in best practices? I came across this wanting to clean the linting errors, but this one is to the point of crazy-making.

4160: 1198: 5001:

and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

448: 4102:, this is not an appropriate forum for your concerns. You should aim to resolve this issue first on the article talk page, which seems to have had very little discussion. If that fails, take it to 3899: 292: 4419:

But I note that the above-mentioned template has various other links which are showing up as redirects to lists, rather than links to roads, as fallout from the same set of edits - A1, A13, etc.

4292: 1357:

If we don't want to go that radical, I'd propose getting rid of the two-tier system, which has some arbitrary limits separating the tiers, and where the third review might not be so necessary. --

5329: 3920: 138: 2012: 197: 1745: 314: 4315: 3955:

I'm shutting down the Freenode channel right now. A lot of us have gone over to Discord. If there's a need for an IRC channel on whatever Wikimedia migrates to we can always set one up. --

1801: 2847: 4075:

info, making it one sided and biased, apparently inviting sockpuppetry allegations which now I believe is inevitable. Recently, he deleted the entire controversy section of the article

2676:

Welcome to Knowledge! Could you please tell us which article has the incorrect figure, as well as point us to a page on the MTC website which lists the values you provided? Thank you! -

1880: 484: 4698: 4684: 1517:. If you know of any, feel free to add them to the list. My hope is to keep this as a list to help those making shields, and to assist those keeping everything organized at Commons. -- 5437: 3131: 2756:! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the 2551: 2288:(the Norwegian sign font), perhaps for route markers or such, I've just spent the last week and a half recreating it from standards and SVG files here on Knowledge. The glyphs are at 5056: 2537: 532:

is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month,

4787: 3111: 133: 1325: 1059: 181:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

968: 5338:

made changes on road sign meaning multiple articles of road signs by country. However, some contains errors, and/or are incorrect, meaningless, and/or disruptive. For example:

4127: 3599: 3508: 1779: 995: 287: 4868: 4772: 4533:

On a side note, shouldn't the single-digit routes (except E4 and E6) have leading zeroes? They're certainly written that way in the standard and have been since around 1992.

3392: 3105: 3074:

I managed to get a reviewer for the PR. The main problem (as of now) is that the tolling table should not be as detailed as it currently is. I've held off on doing it because

1216: 5404:

Can someone please check the edits, and if necessary, rectify the errors made by the IP range? I've fixed the errors (and did revert as it's too large to simply correct it).

3642: 5116:

and list them in the body of the article, if they're going to be listed at all. Otherwise, I've seen prose written out that describe the highways and no graphics are used.

4857: 4284: 3430: 1347: 1549: 768: 4597: 3246:

Oops. I guess I was unclear. It should still say "Shaniko Junction" but it should be plain text, not a redlink. Non-notable non-place listed on maps, if that makes sense.

2907: 1888: 263: 112: 5324: 3758: 3581: 2532: 1572: 630: 94: 4808: 4794: 4752: 3420: 2654:

According to the Peruvian Ministry of Transport (MTC) as of 2011 there were 393km of expressways in Peru. As of 2016 there were 1180km. The figure you have is wrong.

4757: 4582:

A wave of vandalism on numerous articles relating to road signs by country was recently detected. The principal perpetrator was someone most recently operating in the

4567: 4538: 3829: 3604: 1808: 1560: 4571: 3967: 5248: 4542: 3857: 3499:

and see if you would like to help. It's not a big deal and I suspect that the answer is obvious, but a bit of help from an expert would be very very welcome. Cheers

3484: 2777: 1410: 3792: 3735: 3183:

The article for a road junction was deleted and I don't have time to figure out how to suppress the redlink. How do I eliminate the redlink for Shaniko Junction at

2870: 1181: 1080: 611: 5616: 5277: 4670: 4656: 2952: 2683: 2547: 2512: 2494: 2052: 1867: 1621: 1270: 1133: 919: 809: 257: 4207: 4000: 3841: 3241: 3227: 3144: 3013: 2791:

and am sending this message to WikiProject Highways since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at

2741: 1392: 1251: 1042: 1022: 5293: 5201: 4843:

has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the

4528: 4303: 4181: 3318:

No permission is needed to add your name to the participants list. If an editor is banned though, his or her name will be removed to help keep the list updated.

2967: 2465: 1480: 1229: 1152: 962: 935: 728: 705: 4635: 4617: 2927: 2477: 2447:

The red link was at where the template automatically generates the text "The entire route is in Hokkaido Prefecture." The template specifically wanted the link

2435: 1661: 1115: 5182: 5146:

maybe you'd be so good as to elucidate for my edification, because you noticed one of my supermassive reverts. I am a mewling babe on the info superhighway. —

5133: 3823: 3271: 3255: 2082: 1735: 1715: 1493: 1455: 1093: 977:

pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of

688: 663: 645: 5393:

Changing English variation, like from "Pedestrian crossing" to "Crosswalk", and "Give way" to "Yield", and "level crossing" to "railroad crossing". (Example:

2895: 2641: 2620: 900: 4015: 3707: 3561: 2251: 1977: 1912: 1898: 1678: 1397:

USRD/HWY is a bit too small to require that many votes. I think most editors in the project can be trusted in not supporting an ACR without a thorough look.

624: 4647:, but I am also seeing others that do look constructive. Ack. I am going to have to audit this IP range's edits carefully. Thank you for your closer look. - 4055: 2155: 2143: 2116: 5207: 4576: 3695: 3663: 3573: 3335: 2782: 871: 746: 480: 298: 209: 3386: 513: 5562: 4466: 2788: 1554: 1529: 1369: 3416: 3312: 1600: 5549:

to get rid of the code that caused this, so I went ahead and applied those fixes. I got the expensive parser function count down to 14/500 on US 287. –

5106:

to point a reader clicking on a graphic to an article, this is a bit of an easter egg and should not be done. The typical method I have seen is to use

4820: 3091: 3027: 476: 5577:

The A508 ends at a roundabout with four other exits: A5 southbound, local road into Old Stratford, A422 westbound, A5 northbound. So the last junction

2303: 832: 221: 4502: 4486: 4438: 4414: 3869: 3723: 2747: 1795: 884:

I propose that we redirect the talk pages of task forces here, because there are currently several queries going unanswered for months at pages like

851: 208:

Hi all, any thoughts on using mapframe(not released) and maplink in highway projects ? I have updated couple of maps for Indian National Highways in

4494: 3398: 3196: 4895: 4212: 4103: 3740: 3496: 3308: 3062: 1821: 589: 272:

regarding changes to the navbox template and the categorization system of all roads in Ontario. Commenting is appreciated before April 30, 2017. -

4481:

Just noticing looking through the articles on the E-roads a wildly inconsistent way of writing route itineraries. I've added a route itinerary to

4006:

I don't have strong feelings either way, but functionally they are used more as (and IMHO have more encyclopedic values as) disambiguation pages.

3678:

setup. When I'm editing the article, the map shows up correctly in preview, but when I save the article it shows up zoomed out to the whole Earth.

2765: 4702: 2858: 2485: 2241: 2017: 1943: 1848: 5155: 5080: 4556: 2803:

and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as

2415: 1308: 5415: 4379: 3973: 3540: 2792: 1843: 741: 86: 5315:, I can find no policy statement either way. Am I being too picky? Does anybody really care if Knowledge becomes a simulacrum of Sabre Roads? 3360: 4737: 4511:. A list like the one that appears in the E7 article is pretty much useless, in my opinion, because it's devoid of much content and context. 4389: 3887: 3876: 3035: 2852: 2218: 2176: 1891:, etc. That way the scope of the article titles is precise and disambiguation can occur by location as needed, which I would say is ideal. – 1534: 595: 81: 69: 64: 59: 2571: 1352: 1284: 4915: 4550: 4176: 1627: 1000: 5498: 5459: 3171: 2096: 1486:

checklist of things to fix. I have massive headache right now, so I might chime in more later. Discussions good, drive-by reviews bad. –

602:. which of these should be kept? which should we have deleted? I would imagine we want to keep the testcases subtemplates? thank you. 5703: 5678: 5253: 3772: 3304: 1903:

Thanks for the suggestion.It was started National HIghway because it will be helpful in instant search displaying the required item . --

1788: 1437: 337: 4330: 2862:

the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, we have over 44,000 stubs! A good opportunity to improve stubs for your area!♦

3746: 3700:

I've had success with draw order by adding a Z-coordinate. I've used ",4" for my Z-coord because it didn't seem to work with 1 and 2. –

3100: 3082:

passed GAN with a slightly more detailed table. I pinged the user who approved the article, but I haven't heard anything from them yet.

2901: 2760:

that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

2148:

I assumed that's what you wanted to add when you messaged me on my talk page. Could you please show us exactly what you want to add? –

3949: 3264:, but I question if having an unlinked location (even if the location isn't notable) is better than a redlink or no location at all. - 2996:

I would say that it doesn't. Normally, the project (and its subprojects) have focused just on articles about the highways themselves.

1695: 4191: 3504: 3495:

If you are interested in this and similar topics ("the A1 is also the E15, discuss!"), please have a look at my rather trivial query

2934:

see that it would be necessary to change existing articles in bulk. Change them as they are noticed or implement for new articles. --

2669: 2593:

Google Maps for Michigan. For Minnesota, there are some legal definitions that apply that are cited to the applicable state statutes.

1876: 5362:

Changing the images of the sign to different one than used in the country, and/or add signs not existing in the country. (Examples:

3856:

I have seen that other road projects, for example the US road projects has a category for missing maps, KML and junction lists. See

2990: 2230: 1671:

and it works as intended, no T. If I copy the entire jct list, the T appears. And it only happens on this article. I'm stumped. –

5556: 5299: 4890: 4194:) and I came to a batch of roads articles that could use templated junction/routelist bottom and/or general templating, located at 3895: 3283: 2721: 2235: 885: 879: 758:

for inter-provincial highways? There is currently the ability to list states for American inter-state highway articles. Thank you.

5092: 5088: 3031: 2814: 1997: 1985: 4507:

good articles on highways have a prose route description and a proper road junction list table that follows the requirements of

5335: 5312: 4021: 3297: 3044:

Is the article B-class yet? If yes, would this have a good chance at GAN? Is there any need for major improvement at this time?

815: 5363: 3490: 3379:

in the US. But again, those articles should focus more on the concepts behind the road signs and not the signs themselves. –

2262: 1535: 119:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

5369: 2734:

Sorry for the late reply. What exactly is the issue with the templates? Has the issue been fixed since your original post? -

5052: 4563: 4534: 3624: 3500: 3050:. A ribbon-cutting ceremony was mentioned, but I didn't find a reliable source that more than passively mentioned it. Just 2843: 1320: