This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChessEric.

2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused.
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.
If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)

Recommended reading for editors who are upset RIGHT NOW!:
Tips for the angry new user - Gamaliel
Staying cool when the editing gets hot!

If you came here just to insult me, I will delete your comments without a reply.
And if I wasn't involved, personal attacks clearly warrant a block.

Hey we really need your input on some issues that have come up regarding the new yearly tornado page formatting, specifically related to tornado events in Europe. The new format looks good at first glance but it is also causing some unintended consequences. We really need ask, "is this fixing more issues than it is creating"? I am beginning to have some doubts if I'm being honest. TornadoInformation12 (talk)

Hello, my justification for including the I-26 shield in the infobox at U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee was on the grounds that I-26 is the more commonly referred to designation for the majority of the route, but my support for this is only tepid. While it is true that the I-26 designation is not concurrent with the entire route, there are other articles where we include partial length-designations in the infobox like Pellissippi Parkway and APD-40. I actually mentioned this on the talk page, and am open to discussing, the only real concern I have is people looking for this article are more likely to type in "I-26", not "US 23". Bneu2013 (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bneu2013: You know what? I commend you for bringing to my attention a rationale that I hadn't even thought of. In this case, the fact that the entire route is referred to as the James H Quillen Parkway justifies having both shields in the infobox and I've changed it to that. The one amendment I did make was to change the header for the parkway from alternate_name to name since the entire length is known as that. Thank you for clarifying your idea, so that we could come up with a solution. ChessEric 19:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. Again, my support for including both shields in the infobox is still tepid, and I intend to ask the reviewer's opinion about this. I hadn't thought of the Quillen Parkway name justifying the inclusion, but this doesn't appear to be the most common name for this route, unlike the examples I mentioned above. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, SR 137 is a companion state route for US 23, and does not appear to be a commonly referred to designation. All U.S. Highways in Tennessee have a state route routed concurrent with them, which is usually only signed on the mileposts. Since this isn't a primary designation, or a commonly referred to designation, then I don't think it should be listed as one of the primary shields in the infobox. It is already listed below in the component highways parameter. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bneu2013: I knew that already. I wouldn't have put the shield in the infobox if there wasn't signage for it, but there is...for some reason. Hence, I put it in there. ChessEric 18:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I recommend further discussion about this on the talk page. If a consensus can't be reached, then we should probably default to the US 23 shield only. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bneu2013: I think the decision was made for us. LOL! ChessEric 17:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited List of Interstate Highways, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstate 215.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per MOS:DATETIES and WP:CITEVAR, please use MDY in U.S. articles, especially those that already use that date format in citations. SounderBruce 22:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SounderBruce: I use the auto filler for citing sources; is there a way to change the default setting? ChessEric 22:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simply don't submit the edit until you've gone back and fixed it. I'm not sure what Autofiller you're using, but you are responsible for making sure your edits are consistent with project guidelines. SounderBruce 23:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SounderBruce: The auto filler is through Wikipedia itself. I always use that. I'll do better in the future. ChessEric 23:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ChessEric: after using the tool, you can edit its output. Many of those tools perform an inconsistent job because they can't parse every single source used and output perfectly consistent content. So even when I use one, I always end up fixing things like date formats, capitalization (we don't use all caps on Wikipedia), correcting things like missing information or malformed information, etc. Sometimes, honestly, it's just better to craft a citation by hand from the start to get consistent output. Imzadi 1979 → 23:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Imzadi1979: True, although I normally don't have time to check up on everything due to trying to do my schoolwork as well. ChessEric 03:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to apologize - my revert comments were rather on the rude side. Your edits were clearly in good faith and did not deserve gruff.

In regards to section order, I think what I've done with the Ethan Allen Express is a good model for Amtrak routes. History sections make a lot more sense once a reader has the context how where the route goes. Equipment is probably a variable - some routes will only need a paragraph or two; some routes with a longer history may need equipment under a separate level 2 heading. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: Its alright; I've been there so I completely understand. My thing was consistency, but your point made sense; the revert was more to tell you why I did that. I agree with you that the route description should come first; in fact, now that I think about, I'm not sure why the Amtrak route articles are structured like they are. That's something we should bring up on the project talk page in all honesty.

On a side note, your username is cool. XD ChessEric 22:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's a product of how the articles developed over time - for a lot of stations and routes, the history section was added early on, while route details / station design weren't added until later (if at all). I've changed a lot of station articles over, but not many route articles yet. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gotcha. ChessEric 01:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]