[1]

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]

00:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the town-by-town and mileage for Connecticut. I modified your listing format to keep it uniform with Rhode Island and New Hampshire. I will eventually do the same for other states as well. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing footnotes to the Thirty most populous cities in the world article on the talk page. I decided to put them in the article. I'd appreciate it if you could add more footnotes. Again: thank you. Ben ^T/_C 17:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Having so many footnotes seemed a bit too much for me so I simplified the footnotes so that only the controversial ones are listed. The rest probably correspond to cities even though some are not always called cities per se.

Hi Polaron, Thanks for starting the article Chukyo Metropolitan Area. Would you like to call your work to the attention of a larger community? If so, please feel free to add your new Japan-related article titles to the top of the list at Template:Newest Japan-related articles. Again, thanks. Fg2 21:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the article carefully....it is about Greater Mumbai (which includes Mumbai City and Salsette and Trombay but not the Mumbai Metro Area), and not just the city.Pizzadeliveryboy 00:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know for further reference, there is a town called West Granby, CT. I know, I live in Granby. It is probably actually better that you changed the city names though. Thanks.
--Jared ^[T]/_[C]\^[P:O]/_[@]\^[+] 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well West Granby has its own zip code: 06090. Whether it is incorperated or not, it beats me.... Thanks for the comment ! --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop moving the CT hwy pages until we have WP:NC/NH resolved? Thanks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we're going to the Mediation Cabal with this now... um I don't think it matters really until we have it resolved. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving these to their proper names. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They;re not proper names. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)`[reply]

"Route X" is the only name used in Connecticut. Period. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add the Allentown--Bethlehem, PA-NJ Urbanized Area back to the New York metropolitan area page? I was the one that put it there in the first place (thinking that all of northern NJ is in the New York CSA). But then I realized that Warren county is not in the CSA. As I was mistaken, I removed it. But then you put it back. 16:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)TC

My mistake. I thought I was removing the Allentown entry. I will change back to your version. Polaron 16:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure - personally I'd trust a document like I have, which is used to find the mileages that are sometimes posted on town line signs and the like, over GIS data. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that I probably would have been more hesitant to change the values had you cited sources. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron, it took me a minute to realize what you are talking about, but I believe you're talking about the road signs (ex: Image:Connecticut_Highway_20.png). I do not have any already made, but I have the stuff set up so that I can make them. I'd gladly do it! For now, I'll just do the ones for which you've made stubs, but in the future, if you ever need other ones, just give me a buzz. → J@red  18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There done. Tell me if I missed any. → J@red  19:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't have any specs. What I'm doing is taking ones from other images on WP (the New Hampshire ones I think) and centering those numbers onto the CT box, which I found on WP. → J@red  20:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a shield shows up blank, go to its description, click the link to commons, and append "?action=purge" to the end (for instance http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vermont_12.svg?action=purge ). Then do the same to the article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_12_%28New_England%29?action=purge ) and if necessary hard refresh until the shield shows up. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 01:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the discussion on Talk:Route 9 (New England). --SPUI (talk - RFC) 04:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Intro The SADR, ROC, and State of Palestine aren't recognized by the UN, and the Vatican isn't a member, so I figured I would write that in the introduction. -Justin (koavf), talk 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont redirect page Lahore District and Karachi District to Lahore and Karachi. They are different. Lahore and Karachi pages deal with cities not districts. --Spasage 05:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On quite the opposite note, I want to clarify the issue of Pakistan's district. Please see the note I left on the Talk:Karachi page. Basically the cities of Lahore and Karachi are exactly the same thing as the districts of Lahore and Karachi - hence the name city-district. What seems to have happened on Karachi District is that someone has got the wrong end of the stick. There is nothing on that page which cannot be found on Karachi. So if nobody objects, I am going to put redirects where you put them. Cheers. Green Giant 23:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I reverted your edits of Puerto Rico regarding pop. size and area but the UN info is outdated and wrong. Within the UN site [2] there are updated information regarding the island. If you have any concerns please write. Take care. Joelito 03:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct on the population [3], my mistake. I will correct this. Joelito 03:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polaron/Archive1, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you edited my pages on county routes in New York State. (Or rather, Dutchess County because that's all I created yet.) I was wondering if you would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject New York County Routes. Your help would be appreciated. [empirestateroads.com empire state roads] is a very helpful source, and, except for the images is "common knowledge" and does not need to be cited.

After switching over the country by area values to UN figures, I was worried about my change looking like a one man show. I really didn't know if people supported the change (I asked for feedback, but got little to none before I made the change). I probably wouldn't have fought any revisions with much enthusiasm if you hadn't come in. Thank you for watching over the list, and the UN numbers, and keeping me from worrying that I was forcing my lone opinion on people. I really wasn't sure if there was much support for my switch-over, but I see now that others shared my sensibilities on the issue. Thanks again. Malnova 05:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added an "urban population" number to the Dallas, Texas article infobox. The article in its entirity is striving to become a Featured Article by, among many other things, having sources provided for almost every fact stated. If you have information on where you retrieved the number, or if the source is a Wikipedia article and it has sourcing information, please either let me know the details or add a <ref>Reference</ref> yourself in the article. Thanks so much!! drumguy8800 - speak 01:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Three is definitely much better than one. And the 2005 data would actually be preferred. A lot of times editors will revert newer population estimates because they are replacing census information with non-referenced information... if you include a reference, the newer data will be respected and left alone. drumguy8800 - speak 04:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping Newark, New Jersey; but please provide a source for you recent help. If I can be of assistance in any way, please don't hesitate to ask. Thank you, again. WAS 4.250 04:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources!!!!! WAS 4.250 05:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else created the Mexican crime article and, admittedly, the original text was short and appeared to be a slam against Mexico because it seemed to say "Stay away from Mexico, it's crime-ridden."

However, when my attention was drawn to the article, I saw the potential for a valuable article and so I expanded the text based on Google research and tried to take out the OR and POV text. User:Aguerriero believes this is an important article and has pledged to work on it to further remove OR and POV text.

Would you reconsider your "delete" vote in the context of the above points? Article deletion page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexican crime.

Thanx.

--Richard 16:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This GDP fellow is beginning to seriously annoy me. He does not provide any useful information but only changes data on various articles trying to inflate data about Romania and Moldova. Do you want to request RFC or even mediation against him? Originally I have him the benefit of the doubt, but now I am beginning to suspect that he is someone's sockpuppet. Vox Populi (TSO) 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide you a source: http://www.mfinante.ro/venituri.htm but you didn't want to take into account because I think is too official for you...

You prefer an old statistics from 2005 rather than a new one from official Government of Romania. That's strange. --GDP 17:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polaron. I stick by my correction on the list of islands by population. According to the sources referenced, the population of Timor Island was 2,220,000 in 2000. This comprises of the five Indonesian provinces (Kupang, Kota Kupang, Timor Tengah Selatan, Timor Tengah Utara and Belu) plus the whole population of East Timor. Of course this includes some minor islands, for example Atauro off Dili but it shouldn't change the sum too much. Cheers, Mikko.

http://www.infoeuropa.ro/ieweb/imgupload/RR_RO_2004_EN_00001.pdf (page 155) I found here the relation between nominal GDP and PPP GDP:

Gross domestic product per capita b) at current prices in 2003: 2.320 EURO

Gross domestic product per capita b) at current prices in 2003 in Purchasing Power Standards: 6.340 EURO. (the multiplication factor is: 2,7327)

Now the for 2006 the nominal GDP is 93 Billion EURO as you seen above. That means 4227 EURO.

You can compute very easily the GDP in Purchasing Power Standards: 11551 EURO. This data is very close to the data that I used. --GDP 09:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--GDP 09:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GDP expressed as nominal GDP is 92.3 billion euro (~120 billion USD) and the PPP GDP as expressed in PURCHASING POWER PARITY is 240 Billion Euro. --GDP 07:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is that the figures you are citing have not been confirmed by other organizations. Statistics like these should only come from reliable sources. Polaron | Talk 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mfinante.ro/venituri.htm Official sources, and latest one directly from taken from the ministery of finance from Romania. --GDP 16:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, all the above information was correct. Romania collected revenues of 32.6 bln lei (€9.23 bln) to the consolidated state budget in the first four months of 2006, accounting for 10.1% of the country's GDP, said the Romanian Ministry of Finance.

The country's spending in the first four months of 2006 stood at 29.2 bln lei (€8.27 bln), which is 9.1% of the country's GDP.

Tax on profit generated 3.1 bln lei (€877.9 mln) of the country's consolidated state budget revenue during the reported period, while collection of income tax generated 2.8 bln lei (€792.9 mln), value added tax (VAT) contributed 8.1 bln lei (€2.29 bln) and excise tax generated 2.9 bln lei (€821.28 mln) of the total.

The Romanian Government had initially envisaged a budget deficit of 0.5% of GDP for 2006, which increased to 0.9% of GDP after the first budget revision in April 2006.

So GDP is 92,30 Billion EURO in 2006.--GDP 09:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All is explained above, first we have the sources of GDP in nominal currency which is 93 Billion Euro (http://www.reporter.gr/fulltext_ENG.cfm?id=60601145531), then we can compute the PPP GDP by multiplying with the factor (aprox. ~3). In this way you have also the PPP GDP. GDP 15:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me exactly what facts do you contest? The fact that nominal GDP is 93 Billion euro? --GDP 15:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC) If you don't contest the data 93 Billion Euro, then you shouldn't contest the 254 Billion Euro PPP GDP. Just look please at several countries, there are big differences between nominal GDP and PPP GDP. For Romania the proportion is as high as 2,73 factor, even if before was even greater than 3. By the moment Romania will adopt Euro as curency it will probably have the proportion factor 1. --GDP 15:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that. --GDP 15:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--GDP 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I apologise, I don't! I do recall at the time that I read it from source but for some reason that I can't imagine I seem to have neglected to include it. Sorry --Robdurbar 08:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case no one has invited you yet, baka gusto mong tumambay?--Jondel 03:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please participate to the discussion at Romania's talk page instead of writing your fucked arguments! Arthur 10 June

New info regarding the wages in Romania. See talk page of Romania. Regards, --Brasoveanul 12:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't want to interrupt your editing by moving the page out from under you, but I'd suggest you move it when you get a chance. Specifically, List of metropolitan areas by population/temp should be moved to Talk:List of metropolitan areas by population/temp. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses. I don't know why it's this way, but thought you should know about it.--Kchase02 T 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, but the current situation has a major problem. If I'm talking about Andover, New York, what do I link to? --SPUI (T - C) 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if I have a source saying "Joe Smith lived in Andover"? For that matter, how long would it take to sort out [4], and do the same for all other such cases? --SPUI (T - C) 02:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal: Wikipedia:Political subdivisions of New York --SPUI (T - C) 01:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree we can't include all highways in the CSA. My preference would be to include all interstates though. That said, I don't mind if we leave i91 out. However, there is a lot of other stuff on the site I would similarly leave out. For instance, I listed MacArthur and Westchester Airports. I figured that they had scheduled flights from major airlines, so they were big enough to include. But then someone added Teterboro, which does not have flights like this. So as not to be rude, I left it in, but left it in its own category. Then someone added Orange County Airport, which is not reasonable on its own, but given that Teterboro is there seems reasonable. The addition of Stewart by someone did indeed seem reasonable goven that it has scheduled flights from major airlines. I would leave in JFK, EWR, LGA, MacArthur, Westchester and Stewart and take out Teterboro and Orange. But to the extent that these stay in, 91 probably belongs in. But I'll let you make the call.

Even though I know you're in favor of making the change to the new routebox and to the Major Intersections table, please vote on the finalized proposal at WT:NYSR. Thank you in advance. --TMF ^{T - C} 06:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. What's your method to figuring out what junctions get to be in the box? I'm looking for input on how to "qualify" a junction and was wondering what your thoughts are. Stratosphere 06:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you are the editor who updated the List of countries by population density‎ article - You do realize that only sovereign countries are supposed to be numbered, while the rest should be listed for comparison only? Many of the states and territories now listed as sovereign are in fact not sovereign countries (ie they are governed by another state or country), as for example Greenland (belongs to Denmark), Puerto Rico (US territory), Hong Kong (part of China), and so on. Those are not countries, and should not be listed as such. /M.O (u) (t) 19:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's the UN list, and it is most likely correct. But this is not about what should be listed, but what should be numbered. Hong Kong, Macao and Puerto Rico weren't numbered for the reason that they aren't countries in their own right, and should not be ranked as such. Your edits have messed this count up, giving countries like China, Denmark and USA multiple listings, since they control or own oversea territories. And that is why sovereign countries where numbered, while other territories were not, although they were listed, and ordered by population density. Your edits ruined that system, and we now have a list that compares countries to cities. /M.O (u) (t) 20:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really sure that they were messed up? Please, try to understand that this is not just about what you think would be the best way to present this list. Other editors before you have taken their time to separate the sovereign countries from the rest of the list. And this list was already ordered by population density, the difference was that only sovereign countries were numbered. This article stated that only sovereign countries were numbered, but other territories were included as well, for comparison reasons. You are the one who removed that statement, to justify a list that presents incorrect information. If you live in Hong Kong, you live in China. If you live in Gibraltar, you live in the UK. But with this new list that you have made, you can compare a country to itself in regard to population density. Besides, if this list was meant to list about any territory you can think of, it wouldn't be named "List of countries by population density". /M.O (u) (t) 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your edits to Malta, PLEASE refrain from editing country pages before a consensus is reached about this list. You're only creating lots of extra work for nothing. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response. I'll copy it onto my computer whenever I can access the data. Also, thanks a lot for your work on the article. Ufwuct 01:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have begun a peer review for Myanmar. Please express your opinions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Myanmar. Thank you. Hintha 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, I grew up in Weston and my folks are still there. I did double-check though before reverting it, my Hagstroms Ffld County Street Atlas shows Rt. 57 (Georgetown Rd.) ending at Rt. 107 in Redding, Rt. 107 travels West to intersect w/Rt. 7 in Wilton. Now that I triple-check it, Navteq data concurs: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=41.2165+-73.38662&ie=UTF8&ll=41.256936,-73.42766&spn=0.008162,0.022702&om=1 Nice to cross the t's and dot the i's as they say... Enjoy! -RJFerret 06:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there: are you really saying that you think Denmark is nearly ten times as large as the United Kingdom?--Anthony.bradbury 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hadn't considered Greenland, which I agree is Danish territory. Fair comment, I concede the point.--Anthony.bradbury 23:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As the article control city refers to a control city being "mileage signs on longer routes", Plattsburgh actually is listed as a control city on Interstate 87. --Riley 06:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry about the little edit dispute about the population of Delaware Valley. It's clear to me by reading your contributions that you are VERY experienced with editing geographical articles so this is obviously one of your areas of expertise. So, I reverted to your edits and I apologize for the mistake.-Andrewia 01:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		New York State Routes Barnstar
		For your work regarding mileposts on several route articles, including the lengthy New York State Route 5, and for your dedication to the routebox and article formatting as specified by WP:NYSR and WT:NYSR, as evidenced by your edits to New York State Route 9A. Well done! --TMF T - C 07:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the SVG shield image (I didn't know there was one), and for creating the redirects for my redlinks (I would have done it eventually, I swear)!!! -- NORTH ^talk 19:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in the mood to join the mudslinging, can you take a look at the dispute here as a third party? Thanks. --SPUI (T - C) 17:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would really talk about the list of metropolitan areas by population. Obviously you are really into this. So please contact me. I have some question marks in my mind about this subject and also I would like express some of my ideas. Thank you. John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John9834 (talk • contribs)

Is there a list of metropolitan areas (with ranking) that cross national borderline of some sort? —RJN 05:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I did a bit of analysis tonight and I found a list of articles that are still using a table for the junction table instead of the NYSRInt templates. The reason that I had to look these up is that, with the changes made to the Template:NYSRInt coding tonight (a massive upgrade that should improve the efficiency of the template), a lot of the articles that are still using the table no longer display correctly (due to the placement of the NYSR templates inside of the table) and must be upgraded to use the NYSRInt template. I've already taken care of some of them, but here are the ones that are left:

• 116
• 119
• 120
• 121
• 125
• 127
• 128
• 129
• 133
• 134
• 137
• 138
• 141
• 153
• 172
• 247
• 332
• 350
• 370
• 444
• 488

If you could help me out and convert some of these, that'd be great. I'll do some myself as time permits, but a helping hand would be appreciated. Regards, TMF ^{T - C} 07:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I'm planning on creating a Vermont WikiProject to organize the Vermont route articles, which are currently under two different naming conventions. I've seen the massive amount of work you've done on VT articles, so I wanted your input on what the naming convention should be. Any ideas? --TMF ^{T - C} 02:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you tell me where you found these numbers from an 1980 census? I didn't know there had been a census carried out in Iceland since the adoption of the national registry in the 1950s. --Bjarki 18:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked it up and you were right. I've lived here for most of my life and have never heard it referred to as Detroit-Warren-Flint. Everything I've ever seen has only referenced Detroit, Flint, Ann Arbor and Windsor (which can't be included by the US govt).If you lived here, you'd know how ludicrous that designation is. Someone from Macomb County must have done heavy lobbying for that. mp2dtw 00:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me, since you insist on reverting, how the first sentence makes any sense? I'd like a response before appealing this. mp2dtw 00:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for Mediation has been entered for the dispute over Warren and Ann Arbor by mp2tdw. I am a cabal, and I am here to give advice. Seeing as I am not a formal mediator, you are free to ignore me entirely. However, if you find what I say to be worthy advice, you can go for it.

Now, down to business.

From what I see, you are conflicting with another editor about how to address the Detroit metro area, whether to use Ann Arbor or Warren. The other editor claims that Ann Arbor has a far larger cultural and commercial life than Warren. If tyou do not agree with the other editor, you can compromise, and use both names, Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor-Flint. If that doesn't work, show the other editor your point of view. What does Warren have that Ann Arbor doesn't? I hope I have helped at least a little bit. I will be informing the other editor of my idea right now. Thanks for listening.

Viva La Vie Boheme

PS - Here is a link to the Request page, with a couple of compromise ideas. Feel free to contact me at my talk page! Viva La Vie Boheme

I have solved your dispute. "Metro Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint (officially designated Detroit-Warren-Flint by the US Census Bureau)" will be the phrase used. It is similar to the idea you had, and mp2tdw agrees. If you have anything else to say, talk to me on my talk page! Viva La Vie Boheme

Hi, Polaron. Did you ever get any additional comments about numbering officially non-sovereign entities like Greenland on the Countries by area list? You said something in your edit about putting this issue from the discussion page up on RFC. I don't know how to find this particular info source/list, could you tell me how to find it? However, unless the listing on RFC prompted a number of opinions in favor of my thinking, I have decided not to protest your changing of the numbering system. You have maintained the list in recent times with a very steady hand, and have allowed edits you saw as beneficial or at least harmless, and I respect that. Could you just ask on the discussion page about consensus next time before making such a big move (even though there is a large chance you will get no response from anyone else (besides me maybe)? Thanks. Malnova 21:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your opinion on this source from Dallas/Fort_Worth_Metroplex. (This article and this talk page are also involved.) Now, I know that as of 8-1-06, D/FW has more people than Philly Metro (by U.S. Census Bureau's definition), you know, and the author of the above external source seems to know it. However, the U.S. C.B. just came out with the estimates for July 1, 2005 on June 21, 2006. This source seems to be doing an estimate of an estimate based only on growth rates. Do you think this is a valid enough source? I would personally like to wait until the U.S. C.B. comes out with these numbers before we cite it. Also, if the external source did actually find this information from an official release of the U.S. C.B., it should be easy to find. If they did their own research, I would hesitate to cite them. Thanks. Ufwuct 15:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we're talking over in WP:USRD about starting CT and RI highway WikiProjects, and I understand you might be interested. Tckma 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the project! I've already asked a question on the talk page. --Tckma 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your edit on talk page first. You deleted great info. --Noisettes 16:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent change to NSR 28. I figured it would behoove us to specifiy that the Route 28 at this highway's end was CALIFORNIA State Route 28. Hence CSR 28. Do you have any other suggestions for abbreviation or should we just put the full name. Because IMO I'm not comfortable just leaving it as SR as it doesn't differnetiate that it's not a Nevada Route. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object to a change to CA SR 28? I think that would be sufficent. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stalking me? Please stop for your own good. You reverted several times my edits even if I provided sources. --Noisettes 14:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron, your participation is welcome in the Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the California fixes. --SPUI (T - C) 03:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is very similar to design 1 and 1A: User:Seicer/sandbox1. Those are three designs that are under serious consideration, and design 1 to me is the best. For some reason I can't get the image clutter out of 1A out. Just to let you know :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment agreeing with me regarding the city, name unconventional "convention". On the positive side, reason and logic seem to have the upper hand with a current page move vote to change Chicago, Illinois back to Chicago. See Talk:Chicago, Illinois to throw in your support. Much appreciated. The only way to fix this is the way they broke it in the first place... one article at a time. --Serge 23:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from January don't count in this round! Please vote in the current poll near the bottom of Talk:Chicago, Illinois. I agree with you about parenthesis being the better and more consistent approach for handling disambiguities. But, for now, if we can get the convention to be ignored on Chicago, that would be a 100% improvement over the current state where only one city does (New York City). --Serge 03:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain ur reason for continuous reversals to the page given above. I am explaining mine -

1. Regarding PRC and USA at no. 3 & 4 PRC should kept over USA bcoz of Alphabetical order. Even if that is not considered, the HK and the territories administered by Taiwan make PRC 3rd. USA itself had recognized in 2004 Taiwan as an integral part of China. And also United Nations includes Republic of China's non-Taiwanese territories as PRC's.

2. Regarding the Ghulam Kashmir, most of the world doesn't recognize that title. It is considered universally as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir(for which there is a page). And removing the bracket part of includes territories not administered by India, well that is evident from the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir page as is given in this page. So there is no territory of India taken into account in this page that is not administered by India.

3. Regarding Argenitinian claim in Antarctica, a lot of countries claim that but nothing has been written about them bcoz Antarctica's claim is not recognized and neither administrative. So it is pointless to even mention that.

Explain ur reasons for continous reversals to the original page. If u don't follow the three-reversals rule ur account maybe blocked. User page Discussion Edit this page + History

Don't worry, I'm fully aware of the ugliness that 24.228.70.72 and Nextbarker bring to the major junction lists. However, I think it might be best to refrain from reverting their edits blindly. (Logical reversion is okay.) For example, I am in favor of keeping NJ 17 on the major junction list for Interstate 287. -- NORTH ^talk 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I guess US 1 and NJTP are paraleel each other at I-287 but why does the ramp from from 287 to Route 1 get some much more jammed then the NJTP entrances which is further east, and that's basically on Route 440 the NJTP entrance.

But Route 24 is MUCH further south then Route 17.

... for Lithuania infobox adjustments? Renata 14:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Ufwuct 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I saw that you were making the edits that I did not, but thought you made one extra one in addition. Go ahead with what you were doing. I'll live with the edit conflicts. Thanks. Ufwuct 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I messed up something you were doing. I'm done for now. I just updated the list of 25. --Polaron | Talk 23:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't mess anything up. I guess you were just quicker (or I saw your comment on the talk page to the article too late). Thanks for being so punctual with the update. Cheers. Ufwuct 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and sorry if I sounded curt. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't redoing/undoing the other's work.

It seems from your edit summary that you reverted me because we don't generally edit articles just to fix redirects. This is correct, but a lot of those repairs I made did fix red links, and a lot of them removed duplicate links. I have a tremendous amount of work left to do there, and I would appreciate it if you would not revert my changes out of hand. Thanks. Kafziel 16:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a discussion thread at WT:NJSCR to address standards for NJ road infoboxes and invite your participation. Over the past several weeks, we have made tremendous progress in cleaning up the articles for the State highways in New Jersey, especially with the expansion and addition of infoboxes to most of these articles. However, there seems to be a great deal of confusion as to what should be going in these infoboxes. I am creating this thread and inviting those users who have been active participants in editing these pages to come up with a mutually agreeable answer on the issues listed. I will take on the task of moderating this discussion, but I will add my 2 cents on these topics. We can add more questions if needed, but please, be civil. Alansohn 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote at Talk:San Francisco, California. Thanks. --Serge 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch my user page for updates to a list of cities where polls are created. Also, feel free to use the info on that page to create your own polls (and update that list as appropriate) --Serge 04:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polaron.

The move is not controversial at all, but since the destination is occupied by a redirect which has been edited more than once, this means that only an administrator can move the darn thing. I am no administrator, so I have no choice but to use the most cumbersome method. I've added a note to the page explaining the situation. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go ahead and add it, feel free to go ahead and do so. Like you, I don't see any harm in either adding it or excluding it. Its exclusion was surely just an oversight on my part, as I did sort of a rush job when applying the templates. -- NORTH ^talk 04:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the best practice IMO, but I don't know if OC is really a global city in the way Chicago, San Francisco, New York are. It just seemed like the argument about "New York City, New York" being redundant would warrant "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" being moved as well. But yeah, I suppose I'd support a move, although I don't know where the tide is among editors. Jibbajabba 09:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the reference that had been in the article before your edit was pointing to a KSH estimate of 31 May 2006, and as such, it was better than the new one, I think. But I'm already tired of having to edit the number of Hungarians and Hungarian speakers 60% of the time, so I'll just let it lie. :( KissL 15:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehehe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.155.139 (talk • contribs)

Cool! --Polaron | Talk

For years, Houston has been waiting for it to hit the 2 million population, so it can be classified as a world class city (whatever its other names are as well). It was a big article in the 1993 edition of the Houston newspaper when I was visiting that stated that. Ericsaindon2 05:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are Miami, Atlanta, Boston, Copenhagen, and Brussels considered world class or world famous cities?

Polaron, if you get a second, could you take a look at San Diego and the recent goings-on for the article. I've used up two of my reversions [for today] on anonymous editors. My rationale for the reversions is also on that talk page. Your time would be appreciated. Thanks. Ufwuct 17:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move articles into namespaces that aren't approved by the MoS. I can see that you don't agree with the current MoSJA but this issue has been discussed at length and there are numerous reasons (mainly because we don't suffix city names with City in common English) why moving the article to Toyota City is wrong.

In future, it would help everyone a lot if you didn't deliberately disobey Wikipedia's style rules while a point is being disputed, and at least waited until some sort of concensus or level of understanding has been reached.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at your contributions now and I have to ask you... what do you think you're doing?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to argue this point with you: it has been decided at length. If you disagree with it, state your preference and your reasoning in a talk page before doing anything drastic. Your reasoning will be duefully considered and changes will be made after a decision is made. Please familiarize yourself with the original discussions so that nobody is forced to repeat themselves for the nth time. Thankyou.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You linked me the wrong page...could you send me the proper link. Beyond that, that guideline is not very clearly followed - Osaka, Tokyo, Kyoto, Kobe, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima all fail to follow it. Nagoya is one of the largest cities, I think it should fall in with that bunch, rather than the smaller cities at the other format. john k 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an e-mail address registered? I want to e-mail you but it's not letting me. (this is regarding the highway poll). atanamir 00:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool, thanks. did you check the "enable e-mail from other users" in the prefrences too? atanamir 00:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. You can complain but you'll just get blocked. --SPUI (T - C) 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that. Polaron, I'm sorry if folks are shooting down your compromise ideas. Some people can be petty. I think most of us would like to see something everyone can live with. Powers ^T 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I listed the cities to give a sense on the geographical location of the division. I chose those specific ones to give an example of some of the smaller cities and towns within the division. The list I chose the towns from came from the U.S. Department of Labor. Please respond back. MisterM87 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The point to the chosen cities was to include links to the lesser known cities and towns within the Divisions MisterM87 01:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) regarding the guidelines for naming cities of Japan. --Polaron | Talk 08:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the response delay, was on holiday. Really, I just think that section (and much of the rest) of MoS-J should just be deleted, but people like special-casing everything. Matter looks 'settled' in the handful-of-people-straw-poll way that most things get decided by, at any rate. --zippedmartin 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you know what happened to Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA. It appears to no longer exist. I would assume it still existed when you made this edit on July 11.Talk:Baltimore-Washington_Metropolitan_Area#Merger_proposal shows no consensus or closure on the issue and I see nothing for Articles for deletion/Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA, so I'm wondering if you knew anything about it. Thanks. Ufwuct 16:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still get the following text:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

Start the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA article or add a request for it.

Search for "Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA" in existing articles.

Look for "Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA" in Wiktionary, our sister dictionary project.

Look for "Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA" in the Wikimedia Commons, our repository for free images, music, sound, and video.

Look for pages within Wikipedia linking to this article.

...

Are you able to view an article instead (of getting this message)? Ufwuct 16:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Polaron. Since you have commented on the design of exit lists in the past, you may be interested in contributing to the newly-formed exit list guide. Please give your input regarding the page as soon as possible.

Regards, TMF ^{T - C} 22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of any 2006 U.S. Census Bureau estimates? User:Bartowcounty11 made this change, which I reverted. Thanks. Ufwuct 20:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 county estimates won't be out until March. There could be state government projections, though but I think sticking to the Census Bureau figures is probably the best. --Polaron | Talk 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I suspected. Thanks for the reassurance. Ufwuct 22:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! On August 21 you changed the area of Est Timor. Would you please state your source that overrides the UNDP, UNOTIL and National Development Plan data, and contribute your new information to what I have written in the East Timor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East_Timor#Area_according_to_which_source.3F - Land real area of East Timor seems to be a complex issue with many different interpretations. So please take part in that discussion. I am also maintaining some other webpages with East Timor information, so I would like have the best data possible .

-Your information on land area appeared to have been published already in source dating back before independence in 2002, and since the land border has been negotiated. In January 2006 there still was 4% unconfirmer land border. Since your information appeared non-valid I changed it back to the old value. Simohell 15:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I didn't change any information in the article. I just said on the Talk page that the 14874 figure is used by the UN Statistics Division just in case you're wondering where it came from. --Polaron | Talk 15:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. So now I konw your information was correct for the time, but not according to latest information available. It's a pity they dont have a yearbook that would ne newer than 2003 at their site...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simohell (talk • contribs).

Well in the history there is listed this change with your name on it (at 18:52 August 21 2006, with comment "infobox tweaks")

Oh I thought you meant recently. --Polaron | Talk 15:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

02:38, September 23, 2006 Polaron (Talk | contribs) (manchester is not technically a city)

Please discuss before making a major edit to a template, secondly if you noticed in the discussion of the Connecticut template, there was an establishment to what is a city and what is not, Manchester is an important and visible part of Connecticut and thus should be included in the list. For example, Ansonia has a population of 18,000+ as of 2000 census and Manchester a population of 54,000+, how could the former still be still listed? It doesn't make sense.

How do you propose to determine what should and should not be included? Just population? The changes I made were to include only those that the Census Bureau considers cities. --Polaron | Talk 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I saw your comment, and you are right. Manchester is not a city; it is a town. The template is for chartered cities only. Beginning 23:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As regards to SLEX, South Luzon Tollways Corporation or SLTC is now currently constructing the missing part of SLEX between Calamba and Santo Tomas. I made the terminus to Lipa because STAR Tollway is a part of SLEX, though as of today the interconnection is still underconstruction.

Regards, Akosikupal

Hi there! I reverted it back because those numbers are flat out incorrect regardless (Metro Detroit does NOT have over 5 million people according to any of those sources listed in the article!), and it is wrong to mislead readers and remove the clean up tag. Furthermore, the links to the listing of population rankings show Metro Detroit is the tenth largest metro area in the US, not the ninth. A complete revert is not appropriate IMO. Wangry 14:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just edit the text description to match the MSA definition. I was planning to do that myself later but go ahead if you want. There are three counties that need to be removed and also the cities of Monroe, Ann Arbor and Flint (which are each their own metro areas). We also need to go through the entire list of places to make them consistent. Good luck. --Polaron | Talk 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll do as much clean up as I can. The most obvious problem I noticed was that the little "ranked 9th" link went to an article listing the MSA rankings where it was 10th, and in general, this confusion had spread to the Detroit proper page as well. Also, it was long reported that the Metro Detroit MSA pop had 5.4 million (probably out of confusion with the CSA def), leading to more headaches. Wangry 15:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wrote a new intro that hopefully will prevent confusion for readers. What do you think? Wangry 15:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input in my RfA, which passed on October 17, 2006 with a tally of 53/6/0. A word of constructive criticism always helps a person more than a person of support, and your constructive criticism on my RfA helped me realize my shortcomings and how I should improve on them. I will strive to correct such missteps and answer your concerns voiced on my RfA. With humility, 210physicq (c) 02:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greets. Are you in the process of creating maps for the Connecticut SRs? I see there are maps for 2 through 9 so I don't want to step on your toes if that's something you're currently working on. I was going to hit the USR WikiProject list alphabetically and start making some more maps, even though Calif is first, I'm not sure I want to touch that until they figure out what they're doing with the infobox over there. CT was next on the list...if you're doing the maps I'll gladly move on to FL ;) Cheers. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi Polaron/Archive1. Starting today, the Indonesia Collaboration is Java. Come along and help make this a page worthy of the world’s most magnificent island. There’s a suggested to-do list on the the Talk page to which you can add, or just pick a task. All sorts of tasks are required, Images, Citations, Research, Copy Edit, you name it – this important article needs your help!! regards --Merbabu 08:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new move request and survey regarding Cork. This time it is proposed to move Cork to Cork (city) in order to move Cork (disambiguation) to Cork. You are being informed since you voted in the last Cork survey. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 07:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting your substing as you are supposed to wait until the discussion and DRV are complete before substing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you substituting ones with multiple links? Templates are useful in these cases to make less editing needed if a new spur is designated. --NE2 18:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Every time a spur of I-81 is added, every article about one will need to be edited. --NE2 19:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are just temporary moves because I'm planning to edit ((3di)). I just want to make sure no articles use it without breaking the appearance. If you have a better way, then I'll stop. --Polaron | Talk 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The photo you uploaded on your user page, where is it? I thought the Sikorski Bridge joined the previously distinct road. Was it really the West Rock tunnel? (not for a wikipedia article, just curious about the sign!) Jd2718 00:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That counts as embarassing. I grew up 4 blocks away. And I have family a block and a half from there. I've probably passed it hundreds of times, maybe thousands, and never seen it... Nice find! Jd2718 00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I extended the AfD to the other Connecticut Regions (with one exception). I am not at all convinced that the existence of a planning agency or a chamber of commerce is sufficient to establish a name; certainly usage should trump all here. Perhaps I have reached too far then. But even if the name exists, does it merit an article? CT has a state article, 169 town articles, a bunch of Census named places articles, 8 county articles, and 8 region articles. I think someone got carried away. Anyhow, we can discuss further on the delete page. Jd2718 21:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work so far in opposing my AfD nominations. I think your references to the Regional Councils has been valuable, and for me, informative. However, the Councils have names and extents that are familiar and natural, that make sense, much more so, in my opinion, then the current group of articles. Would you consider working together to replace the current articles with articles based on the Regional Councils? Jd2718 16:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds better. I'll withdraw the big batch of AfD nominations. (but keep Coastal Connecticut and Southwest Connecticut; they are just silly.) Is there a page where discussion of what should and should not be considered a region take place, besides the current individual region pages? I'd certainly like to start by insisting that Ansonia is not part of the "Gold Coast," but where would other users be looking? Jd2718 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination of Coastal Connecticut for deletion failed. I will (slowly) begin editing the individual region articles. Let me know if I overstep. Thanks for your interest! Jd2718 23:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that (with the exception of User:Vegaswikian) that we're all in agreement on the display of "state name first" links. I'm wondering whether you could clarify your opinion on links like [[New Jersey Route 17|Route 17]] though? In other words, is NE2's "What links here" logic enough to require links to be set up a certain way, in addition to how they display? -- NORTH ^talk 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Wikipedia policy on verifiability and guideline on common knowledge. You are violating policy by re-inserting unsourced material without providing sources. Please revert yourself. -- Donald Albury 23:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In connection with your edits to the table at Georgia, you seem to have better information than I had. Would you mind updating the footnotes in the table to point to the reference that you used (I noticed that one of my links doesn't work anyway). Thanks. --Tlmclain | Talk 02:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Golden Horseshoe talk page for my rationale for the change. The Golden Horseshoe has included Niagara as part of the inner ring long before McGunity decided to re-write Ontario history. Snickerdo 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is requested as someone with current or recent interest in resolving the U.S. settlement naming convention discussion. I have created a "discussion template" modeled off of an RfC to attempt to structure the discussion, which is spinning wheels and spraying mud. I'd greatly appreciate any input you could provide (including "what are you smoking?"--or perhaps, "keep this in your back pocket"). Thanks in advance. --Ishu 16:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. My response: The OMB might have some executive reason for doing so. To most Los Angeles residents the LA metro area/ Greater Los Angeles Area (an article that you have worked on) is considered to definitely include Thousand Oaks (which isn't completely in Ventura County), the Inland Empire, and Oxnard, Simi Valley (which has LAPD jurisdiction), Oak Park, Point Mugu (which most consider part of Malibu), as they are so geographically close to East and West Los Angeles (the cities themselves). Heck, Thousand Oaks is a 15 minute drive with light traffic from my house in the middle of West LA (Thousand Oaks is closer than Marina del Ray, LAX, and about the same distance to downtown LA). Please look at the locations of the city on their county maps in the links provided. Obviously it is your call, you have been working on the article/project longer than me. If you are looking to determine the legal metropolitan area, I cannot argue that point, the presidents’ budget office (OMB) in Washington has said that Thousand Oaks is not part of the Los Angeles Metropolitan area (even though the LA metro buses serve that area). If you want a local view of the LA metro area, then the above area's are included. If you spoke to someone from these area's they would identify themselves as being from the LA metro area. The call is yours. BMan1113VR 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what has happened in the recent past, having the redirect is used as justification to move the article. So my opinion is why make a change that opens a door for future problems? That not withstanding, there are too make other uses so that I'm not sure if there is a primary use. Vegaswikian 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input on Alansohn's comment on WT:NJSCR (whether you agree with me or not) would be much appreciated. -- NORTH ^talk 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New York State and County Route WikiProjects Newsletter Issue 001 – December 2006
Intro Issue The Beatles WikiProject has been running a newsletter for some time now to great success, and, after some consideration, I've decided to launch a similar effort for the New York County Routes and New York State Routes WikiProjects. This could prove to be a very effective medium of communication between the members of the groups, and with increased communication comes the possibility of increased production. For the most part, this first issue will be a "dry run" of sorts, to work out any bugs in the system. The first serious issue with permanent sections will most likely be January's issue. Nothing as elaborate as the Wikipedia Signpost is planned, but the amount of information that will be found here will more than make up for the lack of framework.	From the Editor This is a work-in-progress and likely will be for some time. As we get settled with a format, I'll begin to make some improvements to the barebones structure and give a little more life to this page. Your feedback on the content and format of this newsletter is greatly desired. With your help, we can make the newsletter better and more informative! Don't be afraid to comment! Lastly, remember that this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 002 – January 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing! Happy holidays to everyone, regardless of how you celebrate. Contributor to this Issue TwinsMetsFan (Editor, Distributor)
DOT Beat Plans to reroute New York State Route 63 in Peoria, Covington, Wyoming County (15 miles southeast of Batavia) were unveiled on December 6. The project will eliminate a sharp curve present in the center of the hamlet, rerouting NY 63 along a new alignment to the north. Details will be finalized by Summer 2007 and construction will commence in Summer 2008. NYSDOT conducted a meeting on November 29 with Binghamton-area residents about the future conversion of New York State Route 17 to Interstate 86 from Horseheads to Binghamton. Topics of note included improvements to exit 67 (New York State Route 26, Endicott) and alternatives to exit 68, an eastbound exit only leading to Oak Street in Vestal, among which was the closure of the exit. New York State Route 23A, closed from Palenville to Haines Falls since June when record rains caused a retaining wall to collapse and give way to a mudslide, was reopened on November 22. During the time that the road was closed, numerous upgrades were made, including the replacement of culverts, upgrading of drainage systems along the road and the repair of both the collapsed wall as well as the existing retaining walls. Project News Remember to vote on next month's project featured article! Articles needing cleanup can always be found at Category:New York State articles needing work. Both state and county routes needing cleanup are fed into this category. Articles on reference routes are now being created in large numbers. As a general reminder, use ((Infobox NY Reference Route)), link to your new article on the List of New York State Reference Routes and Parkway Routes, and, if you need a reference marker made, see TwinsMetsFan or Fwgoebel. Likewise, articles on county routes are also being made in impressive numbers. When writing these articles, be sure to abide by the guidelines on the project page, to maintain a consistent feel across all of the articles. Missing shields for county routes? See TwinsMetsFan or Northenglish. County routes in New York was recently created. Pictures of actual county route shields are greatly desired and needed. Also, if possible, some additional text and history about county routes in New York State would be welcome. New York State Route 11A remains the lowest active route without an article. The lowest decommissioned route with no article is New York State Route 7C. New York State Route 52 was, unfortunately, not qualified enough for Good Article status due to a lack of references (full report). Any references that can be added to the article, particularly the history section, are greatly appreciated. There are routes still lacking mileposts. Member News One month ago today, Fwgoebel came on board to the project and, in the time since, has contributed over 50 new articles on touring routes and has added to dozens more, including helping in the effort (along with JB82 and TwinsMetsFan) to convert all usages of Template:NYSRInt to ((NYint)). It may be belated, but welcome!

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i entered in 7,100 km² for the area. This was the rough estimate in the greater toronto area page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Im.a.lumberjack (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Polaron, perhaps you could lend your opinion on this issue. I proposed using the MSA definition as opposed to the CSA one for consistency (or at least consistency we're striving for) with other Metro area articles. I proposed using the MSAs as opposed to the NECTAs to avoid overlap. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks.Ufwuct 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York State and County Route WikiProjects Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 2	15 January 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project News Status of 531 extension updated Member News Plans for improvements to 104 to be unveiled From the Editor Routes 5 and 20 to receive upgrades
Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line Shortcut : WP:NYSR/N

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Polaron, I am sorry about that "edit war". Some people consider the I-295 portion an "extension" of the Cross Bronx. I was a little confused as to where you were placing the eastern terminus. Are you talking about the I-295/I-695 junction? If so, can we say "Eastern Teminus Throgs Neck Expressway. Does this sound good?

Okay, will do. Heh, I figured out infoboxes (how to make them, that is) so I modified the LIE's, added one for the Interboro, and the Cross Bronx. Again, I sincerly apologize for the edit war. BTW, is there a way in the infobox that I-95 continues up the Bruckner? Also, do you know how to make an exit list? I have no clue how to ;). Take care! Jgcarter 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of moving the junction list on U.S. Route 9 to the state detail page. I've had US 9 on my to-do list for quite some time, but there seems to always be something else that comes along that seems more pressing. -- NORTH ^talk 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Polaron/Archive1, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Wikipedia:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. JAXHERE | ^Talk 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use defaultsort on by country categories such as Category:Military of Côte d'Ivoire. It will nearly always be inappropriate in such places because these categories need to be sorted by a different term in different parent categories. More generally, default sort should be used with caution; we have the pipe trick for a reason, and a huge amount of effort has been put into organising categories in a thoughtful way. Pinoakcourt 12:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request Move

Request to move article back. The request is based on the principal that the common denominator, per the new category UTC-5 demonstrates that cities generally have the state or province name. Take for example Ottawa which should redirect to Ottawa, Ontario and not vis-versa. This will help when categorizing cities. Thank you for following through with the request to move this page to appropriate location --((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In the past, you've noted support on my talk page for naming U.S. cities consistently with other countries (only disambiguate when necessary). See Talk:Boston, Massachusetts. --Serge 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Algeria, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

In List of metropolitan areas by population, is the area listed the total area or the land area? If land area is used, then it's an easy step to calculate the population density (and also easily and quickly and verifiable for readers). Either way, this should probably be noted.

Also Template:Infobox Metropolitan Area does not specify what area is being listed for the metro areas. This can be very confusing. I would suggest having three areas listed, like Template:Infobox U.S. County does. That way, there should be no ambiguity. What do you think? Ufwuct 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you know where the areas come from for non-U.S. metro areas? It would be helpful to have some easy source to check and it is necessary to source this data. I had trouble finding it. Thanks. Ufwuct 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the US MSAs use land area, which is the relevant one for density figures. Listing three area figures is ok if you think it would be more useful. I have no strong opinion one way or another. For non-US cities, if the area corresponds to a statistical area (majority does I think), then that area is used. I listed many of these areas a long time ago but didn't source them and I remember that some of it required digging through lots of tables. Areas that correspond to primary country subdivisions can be found at xist.org. I'll try and source some of these area figures over the next few days and weeks. --Polaron | Talk 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 1	10 February 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project News Notability of state highways is challenged Important deletion debates Featured subproject Featured member From the editor
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/N

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my changes? This list was incomplete, because excluded the city of Paris (France), with a population of 9.644.507 inhabitants (census of 1999). I have placed the correct information and you excluded it. Why? Fsolda 20:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is for administrative municipal units. The 9.6 million figure for Paris is for the urban area. As far as I know, there is no local government associated with the urban area definition. --Polaron | Talk 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York State and County Route WikiProjects Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 3	15 February 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project News Newest state route to go airborne Member News Tappan Zee study progress to be released From the Editor Route 12B to receive safety upgrades Special introduction
Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line Shortcut : WP:NYSR/N

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you changed Fair Haven and Westville from villages to neighborhoods in New Haven County, Connecticut. At the same time, I notice that village is still used for a fair number of places in this article (and the other Connecticut county articles). I am concerned:

1. the designations city, town, borough, and village are being used in a way that makes village seem like another administrative division; it is not.
2. in most cases (all? I don't know about all), village does not match local usage.
3. in many cases (perhaps most), village does not match historical usage.

That being said, neighborhood is appropriate where you used it, but would not make sense to extend universally. What designations could be used in place of village? Named place? No designation at all? Jd2718 14:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a problem. Some of them are indeed villages such as Mystic. Others are probably special-purpose districts or historic districts. Then there are others that are names of the post office. A few more are named of census-designated places. I don't know what the most appropriate catch-all name should be. If we know what type of place it actually is, then let's use that. If not, maybe use "community"? --Polaron | Talk 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. Fairfield County is already clean. Thanks. Jd2718 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't work on the exit list right now. Thanks. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on it before you put your notice. Sorry if it messed up what you were working on. Have fun. --Polaron | Talk 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's all done. Thanks for understanding. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I my travels, I ended up taking a shot of Woosocket City Hall. I've uploaded the image, and attached it to the Woonsocket, Rhode Island infobox. Thought it would be a nice addition. I can't get it to show. Hope you know a little about infobox code. What am i missing??????? Thanks for the help (if you can) Pmeleski 13:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • thanks for fixing the infobox.......I'll try cropping whenever I get the chance. Feel free to edit/crop my picture if you'd like....Pmeleski 02:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)... Thanks again[reply]

File:New Jersey blank.svg The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 2	24 February 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project News Notability of state highways is upheld Deletion debates Kansas Turnpike is now a Good Article Featured subproject U.S. Roads IRC channel created Featured member Infoboxes and Navigation subproject started From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has listed an article that you have been involved in editing, Rhode Island Route 11, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island Route 11. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --TeckWizBot 14:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC) --Eastmain 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you redirect the article, I would withdraw the nomination. -Nv8200p talk 03:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		MPD was right. Eloquent words on what a guideline actually means. I couldn't find a more appropriate award, so one that smiles will have to do. If only we all had as much common sense as you. -- NORTH talk 04:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Staggering levels of common sense is deserving of an award, no matter how whiney it might have been. I didn't think it was that whiney, though. -- NORTH ^talk 18:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are doing importances on a national level, not a local level. Please consult the importance scale and the discussion regarding this on WT:USRD/A. Thanks. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certain highways especially in southern New England are just as important as Interstate highways - certainly more important than many 3dis in those states. But if this overly simplistic view is what's agreed upon then I won't contest it. I might bring it up for discussion in the future when I have time. --Polaron | Talk 03:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do not continue reverting the corrections. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you're not implying that Route 15 and Route 19 (Connecticut) have equal importance. In Connecticut, there are only state roads and town roads (there are no county governments in Connecticut). The numbering of state roads has no pattern and includes both primary and secondary highways. I have not reverted those of high importance but only those that are realistically of low importance. Please do not accuse me of continuing to revert as I have not reverted the high importance ones. Are you saying that there are no highways of low importance in Connecticut? --Polaron | Talk 05:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County routes would be the low ones. But please, until a change has been given consensus, do not revert the importances away from the current consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no county routes in Connecticut. Roads that would have been county routes in other states are maintained by the state. The issue of importance has not had wide discussion anyway. We shouldn't bee blindly following guidelines anyway as there are always exceptions. --Polaron | Talk 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, please follow the standard. If you disagree with it, go to WT:USRD/A, but follow the rule until it is changed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rule currently already allows for secondary state highways to be of Low importance. It just happens that both primary and secondary state highways in Connecticut (and MA and RI as well) are part of the same numbering system. --Polaron | Talk 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, only if it is legislatively designated by the state DOT as a secondary highway, should it be rated as lower. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you must. You probably know more about CT highways than I do anyway. In the grand scheme of things it is not important. Good luck in implementing your plans. --Polaron | Talk 04:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 3	10 March 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project news Inactivity? Deletion debates Article Improvement Drive Featured subproject Good and Featured Articles Featured member From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Active user verification

Hello, Polaron. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry I'm still kind of new to this wiki thing, and couldn't find your question til now. I know for a fact, as I've traveled here, that CR 80 end shields are north of Rockland Lake, at US 9W, before that wrap around that you are talking about. I've seen on maps too though that CR 80 wraps around the lake ending again at US 9W. My guess is it is a part of CR 80, but unsigned for the reason they don't want to draw attention to the road, as it is through a state park, and they want to keep travel to those who are there to enjoy the park. It also could be something they removed recently as well, as the only update maps i've seen are from more than a year ago. If you have current ones from 2006 or 2007 could you send me the links or pdfs? Thanks! Airtuna08 02:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm gonna email the person in charge of transportation in Rockland County, and find out what the deal is with this route and a few others. If you want to add a line to the CR 80 page about the extra extension thats cool. I'll edit it later according to if I hear back from the transportation dept. Thanks! Airtuna08 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Transportation Commissioner of Rockland County got back to me today. CR 80 does not extend around Rockland Lake any longer. It was unofficially part of the route from 2000-2004. But in other news, I updated the main page for the Rockland County Routes, should be all set to go. Thanks. Airtuna08 05:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see that ;). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're on the same page here, I wanted to ask what exactly constitutes a minor junction on the Rhode Island route pages? That way I can save you from extra work to do.  :) --Dbm11085 00:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I've also been trying to catalogue the RI routes by adding categories for the county/counties they pass through. Either way, thanks for clearing that up for me. --Dbm11085 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 4	24 March 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project news March 16 IRC Meeting Deletion debates Kentucky and Utah projects demoted Featured subproject A quick look at the structural integrity of state highway WikiProjects Featured member From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new map. —Scott5114↗ 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --NE2 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 5	5-8 April 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project news Good and Featured Articles are promoted Deletion debates Interstate 238 revert war Featured subproject IRC discussion comes to light Featured member From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Apologies for the late delivery, TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the categories on List of numbered highways in Washington. It seems that whenever I do any copy and pasting on Wikipedia, I always forget to fix something. -- NORTH ^talk 18:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 6	21 April 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project news Canada highway WikiProjects deleted Deletion debates Featured member From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you should know that I undid your redirects on Massachusetts Route 101 and Route 101 (Massachusetts) because there IS actually a Route 101 in Ashburnham. These therefore should not redirect to US Route 44, in my opinion. I'm probably going to write an article on 101 tonight when I get home from work. Did US-44 used to be called MA-101? If so, I will link to it in the article. Thanks. -- Tckma 18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The area you put in for this Fiji Island doesn't match the area listed in its article.

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 7	5 May 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news April 27 IRC meeting California Deletion debates MacArthur Maze Fire Illinois Featured member Circular route shields Pennsylvania From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Area is a government recognized Metropolitan Agglomeration]. I don't know how you can't seem to understand that. The almost 5 million people that live there isn't something i'm just making up.

Also i don't think you understand the the guidelines of editing, because based on your other user discussion i've noticed i'm not the only person who has brought up issues with your edits. I say this because sub info is allowed for informational purposes.

I am giving you a heads up so you don't continue to make discriminating edits and ,maybe in the future, not have conflicts with other users about your free-lanced edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why don't you cite a government source indicating which areas are included and the criteria for inclusion then? I am not saying that it doesn't exist but it doesn't fit into the definitions in the lists you're trying to put it into. For example, the New York MSA excludes Bridgeport because it is officially a separate metro area even though the urbanization is continuous. As long as you find a source for population and definition from thew U.S. Census Bureau or INEGI then you should be ok. --Polaron | Talk 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCING:

San Diego County: 3,051,280

Tijuana (not the entire): 1,410,700

Rosarito (not the entire municipality): 56,887

The population above is the Official population of San Diego County, Tijuana, and Rosarito.In the MEX portion, it doesn't include the entire municipality, just the municipality seat. if you add that up, it is about the same number as the World Gazz.

Cooljuno411 00:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the concern. I'm sure the population figures add up correctly. But who defines this as a *single* metropolitan area. There is the Zona Metropolitana de Tijuana and the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area. These are two seperate metro areas (like Washington and Baltimore) and should be ranked separately. The fact that they are sometimes treated together should be noted of course. --Polaron | Talk 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Area is an Urban Agglomeration, which is the continues extent of a Built Up Area. San Diego-Tijuana feature continues urbanization and that is what makes it one metropolitan area.

Cooljuno411 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be easy to find an official source indicating that. --Polaron | Talk 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave you a source but you did not want to accept it. And why would i put San Diego-Tijuana in the continues urban area only and not the metro article as well. Continues urbanization is a form of a metropolitan area.

Cooljuno411 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan areas are defined by commuter flows to a single core city, at least on the List of metropolitan areas by population. A conurbation can span several metro areas. I've noted San Diego in the notable exclusions section. --Polaron | Talk 00:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego is the core center of the metro area. The San Diego-Tijuana border is the most traveled acrossed border in the world (if you want that source look at the article). The reason why people travel across that border, everyday, is mainly to come work in San Diego do to better pay.

You should be able to cite commuter flow statistics then that show that 25% of Tijuana residents that are employed work in San Diego County. Otherwise, they are treated as separate metro areas by the Office of Management and Budget which defines metropolitan areas in the U.S. --Polaron | Talk 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UN report also lists overseas regions separately, so your argument is not logical. Either you include all of overseas France, either you exclude all of it. As for other countries, their overseas territories are not part of the country. E.g., Puerto Rico is not fully part of the US, and Bermuda is not fully part of the UK. People from Bermuda cannot vote in UK Parliament elections, and people from Puerto Rico cannot vote in US presidential elections. Also, if you are British it's quite hard to settle in Bermuda, and if you are American, it's quite hard to settle in Puerto Rico, because the local governments there restrict immigration to their territories. It completely different with the French overseas regions and territories. They are fully part of France, they vote in all national and european elections, and people can settle anywhere within the French Republic. A Parisian can settle in French Polynesia completely freely as if he/she was moving to Provence or Burgundy. Godefroy 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're giving me the choice, I would exclude the overseas regions to be consistent with the UN report. If you do not like that, just remove the ranking from the French overseas territories. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would suggest removing the ranking from the overseas territories. I would also suggest removing them and the overseas regions altogether from the list. We do not list Hawaii or Alaska after all, do we? So why do we list Martinique or Réunion? Godefroy 22:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that in the past INSEE used to give population figures for Metropolitan France only, and people in overseas France resented that as they thought they were being treated as 2nd-class citizens, so now after they protested INSEE includes overseas France in its figures. Even the World Bank includes overseas France in the GDP and other economic figures for France. Last but not least, during the presidential campaign Sarkozy repeatedly mentioned that France was a country of 64 million people, so he certainly included both the overseas regions and territories in his figure. Godefroy 22:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and do that then. We should probably emphasize through that the France figure includes all overseas territories unlike other countries. --Polaron | Talk 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added a footnote specifying that France here includes overseas France. As for removing French Polynesia and the likes, I'd rather hear from other people before, as some people might find the info interesting. But we can certainly remove the rankings for now. OR, another option would be to make a separate list of non-independent overseas territories where we would list: Channel Islands, Puerto Rico, Tokelau, French Polynesia, Martinique, Bermuda, Isle of Mann, Greenland, etc. Perhaps that would be the best solution. Godefroy 23:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Merritt_shield_lowres.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. hbdragon88 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you made a substantial contribution to the article, I feel I should let you know that I am nominating it for GA now. If it passes, by all means claim a share of the credit. Daniel Case 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been passed! Within hours! Great! Congratulations! Daniel Case 12:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 8	19 May 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news USRD members assist Canada project California Deletion debates Two debates at USRD Illinois Featured member A new GA Oklahoma From the editors Pennsylvania From the editors Washington
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 19:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering why this was done. What happens when another South Kent posts a page? Phil 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is only a section of the town of Kent. As with most Wikipedia article, disambiguation will be added when another article with the same name is created. --Polaron | Talk 04:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Phil 12:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was just wondering why you undid my revision to Delaware Valley. The article incorrectly states that the Philadelphia metropolitan area is the 5th-largest in the country. The city proper is the 5th-largest, but according to the source you cited, as a whole it is the 4th-largest metropolitan area. Please confirm and revert to my edit. Thanks. BroadSt Bully 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polaron, I notice you've made a few edits to the Ridgefield, Connecticut article, so you might be interested in contributing to a discussion at the Talk:List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut page. I'm trying to get a consensus on what to do with a list of three people who many believed lived in Ridgefield, but didn't. If you have an interest, please look at the discussion and, whatever your opinion, I hope you'll comment. (I'm being careful here not to violate WP:Canvas, a guideline I support. If this message annoys you, I apologize and won't be writing more to you unless you request it.) Noroton 16:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...use it even if it's outdated (2006; when we have estimate for 2007)??? --PaxEquilibrium 18:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NSI estimate is more reliable than the CIA Factbook. There are more than a couple of cases where the CIA Factbook figure is the outlier and this is one of them. The NSI figure agrees with both the Population Reference Bureau and the United Nations. --Polaron | Talk 18:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the arguments for not having the countries that make up the union of the United Kingdom listed on this page? Since you never put a reason as to why you undid the changes.

The list basically includes entities listed in the List of countries. Since the primary administrative subdivisions of the UK are not there, they should not be in any ordered list of countries in Wikipedia either.

--Polaron | Talk 20:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is it worth sticking them in as un-numbered entries to give people the information they require? Basically because each country which makes up the union has there own education system and they do projects based upon them and these figures are of great use for them. There are prob alot more reasons as well.

Also what defines a country on the list of countries page? Because the England page says its a country.

You should bring that up on the talk page of List of countries. --Polaron | Talk 13:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, energetic particle -- real and imaginary (e.g., Star Trek) -- can you please assist/intervene at List of countries by Human Development Index? A particular semi-autonomous collection of baryons et al. continues to re-add the original HDI figure for the EU, which is disrupting my homeostasis and that of the article. Merci! Corticopia 03:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not get into an edit war. As long as it's clear in the table that the figure is unsourced, it might be ok to leave it in for now. Try to get an RFC or something to get a wider opinion. --Polaron | Talk 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- thanks. Frankly, I don't see why we should tolerate unsourced information, particularly if it's incorrect and admittedly by that editor's own hand. I may launch an RfC and I'd rather not get into an edit war, but just might. Besides, I fail to see why this editor is so insistent on including it, beyond the fact that they may take pride in having calculated it in the first place and seeing it in 'print'? Corticopia 16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that this only used US 44? An 1813 map shows Mantup Road continuing east across the Quinebaug River. I was wrong about part of it, though, since it appears to have used Hurry Hill Road and Chase Road. An 1833 map still shows most of this, with the exception of the Quinebaug River crossing, and an 1856 map also omits the road between Hurry Hill Road and Chase Road. The book states that it passed over Killingly Hill, and [5] says that Killingly Hill is Putnam Heights, where Hurry Hill Road intersects Route 21. --NE2 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think to check aerial photos; most of the route near the Quinebaug River can still be seen, probably as property lines: [6] The other abandoned portion actually shows up as a trail on 1945 and 1989 USGS topos. --NE2 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No definitive information. All I know is it connected to West Glocester Turnpike in RI, which according to this is now US 44. But it looks like you have more definitive evidence otherwise anyway. --Polaron | Talk 22:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that the 1813 map actually distinguishes turnpikes from public roads. The route as described is indeed shown as a turnpike. --NE2 23:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to [7] (not sure if that URL will work; if not, search [8] for Pine Bridge), the historical post office name was Pines Bridge, but the present name is Pine Bridge. --NE2 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pines Bridge is what is on the CT DECD list of principal communities and also seems to be in more common use. The name of the road through the that section of Beacon Falls is also Pines Bridge Road. --Polaron | Talk 23:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... you may be right. --NE2 00:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 9	9 June 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news Highways notability guideline? California Deletion debates Portal debate Maryland Featured member Three new GAs From the editors Exit list debates
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 16:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I will add the template to the Karachi Article. Regards 02:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You undid the changes I'd done to the article List of countries by population. I do have sources but I don't see anybody else making reference to their source of information. According to Hagstofa Íslands (that would be those who take care of statistics around here) the population (01/04/2007) of Iceland is 309.699 not 301,000 as the out-of-date UN estimate states. Hagstofa Íslands provides the UN with those figures and now it's time to update them. Cheers. --S.Örvarr.S 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just put a link to the source for your figures. You left the source as "UN estimate" but it is not the same figure as in the UN report, which is why I reverted. --Polaron | Talk 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. --S.Örvarr.S 17:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With your recent changes of Largest urban areas of the European Union, I hope you realize how ridiculous it is that the List of metropolitan areas by population lists the Ruhr with 5,359,228 inhabitants whereas the list of largest urban areas of the European Union now lists the Ruhr area with 10,069,000 inhabitants. Great improvement of Wikipedia credibility! If you had taken time to read the talk page entirely, you would have understood why people didn't use the INSEE list. The INSEE list is based on the 2000 revision of the Geopolis list which uses new definitions of urban areas, whereas the list that you totally deleted was based on the 1990 definitions of urban areas which make more sense to pretty much everybody except you.

The 1990 definition distinguished Ruhr from Cologne, Brussels from Antwerp, Manchester from Liverpool, NYC from Philadelphia. Now the 2000 definitions consider Ruhr and Cologne as the same urban area (thus getting that ridiculous 10 million figure), Brussels, Antwerp and Ghent as a single urban area thus getting more than 4 million people, NYC and Philadelphia as a single urban area of 27 million (for Christ's sake, not even the US Census Bureau includes Philadelphia in the NY consolidated metro area!). These figures are completely meaningless, and I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why the Geopolis website is currently down is because they have received lots of negative feedback and they are perhaps checking their new definitions of urban areas.

I won't revert your changes, but I completely disagree with the use of the INSEE list for this article, and I am probably not the only one. Besides, the list had been adjusted to take into account cities that have grown tremendously since 2000, whereas the INSEE list you're using is based on 1990s growth rates. So for instance Madrid is completely underestimated (between 2000 and 2006 the Madrid Autonmous Community greww from 5 to 6 million), whereas Ruhr is bloated out of proportion. Keizuko 15:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must stress that what I find the most extraordinary in this is that you have deleted the list entirely without consulting anyone or opening a debate on the talk page, despite the fact that the list was the result of edits from tens of serious editors over several years. Keizuko 15:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Geopolis list is only a fall back if urban area data is not available from any other reliable source. By all means, feel free to replace figures with other ones as long as they are from national census authorities. As it was prior to my changes, most of the figures were unsourced. --Polaron | Talk 16:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should note that urban areas do not necessarily have to be smaller than metropolitan areas. Urban areas are based solely on morphological definitions without regard to how workers commute from one place to another. --Polaron | Talk 16:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's something you don't understand here. The INSEE list IS the Geopolis list. It's the same. INSEE used the Geopolis list, and updated the figures as of 2005 by using 1990s growth rates (Geopolis update their list only once every 10 years: 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010). What I'm trying to explain to you is that the INSEE list is based on the 2000 Geopolis list which uses a much wider definition of the urban areas than the 1990 Geopolis list (e.g. Brussels and Antwerp considered as a single urban area in the 2000 definiton whereas in the 1990 definition they were considered as two separate urban areas). Most people agree that the 1990 definition makes more sense, especially for very dense areas like west Germany or Belgium. Last but not least, you say feel free to replace figures with other ones from the national census authorities, but in most countries census authorities do not define urban areas, so there's no way to replace these stupid figures from the INSEE list with national census figures. Germany, Spain, and Belgium do not define urban areas for instance. And for the last time, there's nobody nowhere in the world that says that the Ruhr has 10 million inhabitants. You can check any encyclopedia, any geography book, any source, nobody ever says that the Ruhr has 10 million inhabitants. You should read Ruhr Area. So the list has it stands now has close to little credibility. Keizuko 14:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one last thing. It is not true that prior to your changes most of the figures were unsourced. All the figures came either from the Geopolis list (with 1990 definitions) or from national census authorities (as for UK urban areas for instance). The only unsourced figures were those added by vandals over the months. Keizuko 14:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the INSEE list is the Geopolis list, which is why I've always referred to it as the Geopolis list. (I don't recall ever calling it an INSEE list). Who are these "most people" you refer to? Wikipedia is not in the business of original research. If these people are authorities on urban areas, then there must be publications from these people that have the numbers you want. Just change the numbers that don't make sense to you with figures you agree with as long as they are sourced to a census authority or any other reliable source. Self-published sources by hobbyists are probably not what one would consider reliable. Regarding the Ruhr area, just change the label to "Ruhr area-Wuppertal-Koln" or something similar to reflect what the Geopolis list area actually refers to, and that way it will be clear. --Polaron | Talk 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see what you are going for (the Census Bureau's rationale), but I don't find it in the cites. I could be missing it, but I have a feeling that it is more complicated than anything we want to get into in the article. It may be good enough to say that "the Census Bureau treats it..." or "...considers it..."

However, if the rationale for forming the different Census Bureau statistical areas is in fact straightforward, let's just get it right and put it in. (And I apologize if it was in front of my face and I overlooked or misread it). Can you provide a source on how they decide?

Either way, the important bit is that southwestern and central Connecticut are (hand-waving here) "oriented" towards NYC. The census category shows that nicely. Jd2718 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way you put it is probably sufficient for the New England article. Interested readers should probably read the Combined Statistical Area article anyway, where some these details are described. Let's leave it the way you rewrote it for now (until someone else tries to rephrase it again :) ). For reference, the methodology can be found here (p.11 of the pdf file). --Polaron | Talk 19:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my error in Massachusetts Route 3. --NE2 22:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for the "save" with NY 58; it wasn't on the main New York map but does appear on the New Jersey map. --NE2 02:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you anything about the history of Route 106? In 1926, it was a fully east-west route, violating the pattern. Did it extend north or south before Route 138 was designated? --NE2 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest map I have with route numbers is also from 1926 and shows a routing of Easton Five Corners - Halifax - Kingston, which confirms what you said. I don't know any more than you do about it prior to that. My guess is it has been that way since it was first numbered. I wasn't aware though, that there was a supposed to be a pattern in the numbers. --Polaron | Talk 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In every state I've looked at, including New York, the routes have followed the even/odd directional pattern set by the New England Routes. --NE2 00:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you verify whether NY 52 existed in essentially its present form to Carmel on your 1930 or 1931 map? Thank you. --NE2 08:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1930 map, the roads are indicated except for Walden-Newburgh and Stormville-Carmel. In the 1931 map, Walden-Newburgh appears as "under construction". The current Stormville-Carmel route is still not shown but NY 52 is indicated along old Route 39 from East Fishkill to West Patterson, then along a previously unnumbered road from West Patterson to Lake Carmel (current 311) and Lake Carmel to Carmel (current 52). It is possible that the current direct Stormville-Carmel route was a later realignment. I'll try to find out more information. --Polaron | Talk 15:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: In a 1938 map, the modern Stormville-Carmel alignment is now shown as 52. The Stormville-West Patterson segment is now 216 and the West Patterson-Lake Carmel segment is now an extension of 311 (originally West Patterson to NY 22). I don't have anything betwen 1932 and 1938 with me now. If I have time, I'll try and check the library next week to see when the realignment occurred. --Polaron | Talk 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chester-Hadlyme Ferry, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Charter Oak Bridge.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain why you're reverting my edits? It's more logic to have links to an actual page than to first link to a non-existant page that in turn links to the same page. JdeJ 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, I wasn't aware of it but I'll keep it in mind in the future. I find it a bit strange, sure, but since that's the rule I will of course follow it. Take care! JdeJ 00:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On July 3, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Connecticut), which you nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 10	7 July 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news Kentucky subproject promoted California Deletion debates AID restructuring Maryland Featured member GA status Pennsylvania From the editors Notability discussion currently collecting dust
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 04:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 9 July, 2007, a fact from the article Connecticut Route 108, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you point me to a place where I can find the data for the principal cities list in Greater Boston? I watch that article, and I notice that cities get added and reverted from there all the time. The list can't be based on cities that have more jobs than residents, because, for example, Lowell (so I read somewhere) has a daytime population of 60,000, even though it has 100,000+ residents. However, as the 4th largest city in the state, and the second largest in Greater Boston, I think it belongs on this list. Lawrence is probably even worse for that, and Lynn, which isn't on the list, isn't much smaller than deeply depressed Lawrence. I think an official, directly cited source would reduce the constant edit/revert situation. Thanks, CSZero 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the list and you're right. A couple of the cities are just the largest cities of the NECTA division they're in but not listed as principal cities. The list of principal cities is here. I'll go ahead and delete the non-principal cities. --Polaron | Talk 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! CSZero 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...one more thing though. This list is obviously very factual, being census data and all, but as a resident of the state, it doesn't sit well with me because some of these places are pretty small, since what they really are are highway suburbs. Looking at, say, an areal map of the area, there are a lot of clearly visible, larger (but poorer,old, and economically depressed...), population centers that seem omitted. I'd almost like to make an asterick for the principal cities and towns list explaining where its from and why, and then have a second list of 'other population centers' with cities like Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill in the North, and Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford to the South. In the Boston core, there's Lynn at least and maybe Somerville. Many of these cities have 80,000+ residents, and I think that makes them mentionable. What do you think? CSZero 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the list to be based on population, I think that is fine. That might even be closer to what most people think as major cities. My only concern is that people will start adding more and more to the list of towns. But I guess as long as we state the criteria, it should be ok. You might want to move this discussion to the article's talk page to get wider input. --Polaron | Talk 17:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking that - will do. CSZero 17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if US 6 between Port Jervis and Middletown ever had a state route number? Thank you. --NE2 03:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from the old maps I have (1926 and 1927 Automobile Bluebook), the alignment used by US 6 west of Middletown in New York was not numbered. --Polaron | Talk 14:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reference that, and anything else you have the maps for, on US 6#History? --NE2 03:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious why you are redirecting CDP articles? The CDPs are usually distinct statistical subsets of the the towns, so I don't see the point of redirecting them. older ≠ wiser 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CDPs I am redirecting are those that are not thought of as separate places locally. I have left CDPs for named areas that are distinct from the town center (so called villages). CDPs for town centers will never have any content in them that would not be in the town article. In Connecticut, the entire town is usually considered as one place. --Polaron | Talk 20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there are verifiable sources that these are "not thought of as separate places locally"? The CDP articles already have content that is not in the primary town article -- the statistical data. That is enough for many tens of thousands of other articles about U.S. places -- I don't see why these should be treated differently. older ≠ wiser 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know very well that if the Census Bureau considered all CT towns as incorporated places (since they are in practice) and not as merely MCDs, then these CDPs wouldn't even exist. I'll bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut to get wider input. --Polaron | Talk 23:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My source is the article for Guelph, Ontario where it says the Metro population is 200,425. Looking at the articles for other cities on the list such as Barrie, Toronto, and Hamilton, the metro populations are the exact same as the ones used on the golden horseshoe article. There is also a source for this information in the first paragraph of the Guelph article. If we need sources on both the Guelph and Golden Horseshoe pages for the same information, let me know and I will gladly put the source into that article as well. I just don't understand why all the other cities have metro numbers listed but Guelph uses a city proper number. --71.199.196.64 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for the reference to the National Bridge Inventory! I'll get a good look at that!! Denimadept 02:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got a good look at it. It's a nice start, but he's got lots to add. Still worth checking, though.

I am pretty sure that I didn't break the 3RR. Have a look again, the last 2 edits were not revertings. As I didn't received any replies on the talk page, I will add the EU back. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Polaron. Thanks for sticking with the list of countries by area (and pop) and holding it to standards all this time. I remember when you made some big edits that I found controversial and I argued against them. But in the end I decided to support them because I knew you were here and making thoughtful changes for what you thought was good for the list. I notice you try to stay above the fray, and I respect that. I wish I had the restraint not to get drug into the mud slinging, but I don't. I console myself with the notion that I don't start such things, but that's really not much of an excuse I guess. Anyway, keep up the good work. Malnova 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully, someone will come up with a solution that is tolerable to all soon. I might try one solution out later. If you have other ideas please do share them. Thanks again. --Polaron | Talk 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Polaron,

I know that you edit often contents about urban and metropolitan areas, so I know you have a good knowledge about this. As you probably know the English definition of an urban area is a contiguous built-up area, whereas metropolitan areas are about commuting areas. Anyway, in French, an urban area is called "unité urbaine" (that is translated word by word as "urban unit") and a metropolitan area is called "aire urbaine" (that is translated word by word as "urban area"). Only because of this ThePromenader has edited the Economy of Paris article and replaced all references about the Paris metropolitan area to references about the Paris urban area (or sometimes Ile-de-France). Here's a map showing well the differences between both.

Hope you could do anything about it. As obviously ThePromenader is convinced that's the way it should be. Metropolitan 18:32 20 July 2007 (UTC).

Your efforts to compel folks to at least make a reasonable effort to establish consensus on the talk page before making changes on the project page is appreciated. I believe the only way to enforce this is to revert any changes made without discussion and reasonable effort establish consensus. Thanks. --Serge 20:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope, beyond reason, that Serge will abide by this rule in the future. It does not describe his past behavior. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's bad in List of crossings of the Connecticut River, then you or I should probably undo it in List of crossings of the Charles River too, as I did that both places. Denimadept 14:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only instances I have seen where the CT or MA abbreviations are used for state highways are in road geek websites or in driving directions (e.g. Google Maps). Excluding driving directions, state highways seem to be only referred to as "Route X". I am definitely sure this is the case for CT. I am less certain about MA. --Polaron | Talk 15:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I can make it easier, should I go ahead and tag the pages in the discussion area on the PA route pages im making right now? Figured I would ask to see if its ok. Thanks :) Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 10:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your consistent and valuable patrol of List of United States cities by population, ensuring the continued integrity of the list against the constant tide of regional boosterism. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 05:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Polaron. In case you haven't noticed, two Users that had a disagreement about whether the EU should be listed on the various lists mutually agreed to take their debate here. The exception to previous cases is that they are very diplomatic in their arguments (and the pro-EU guy, from his arguments and edit history does not seem to have any vested interest in the EU, and seems to actually want the EU's entry for it's own merit). I thought the intelligent, civil, organized debate going on there would be a breath of fresh air for you if you haven't seen it yet. I thought about staying out of the debate, but I saw a few issues that had not been addressed and did make some additions. Take a look at the debate if you have time. Malnova 23:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master son^{T - C} 16:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously, that list is also highly flexible and subjective, isn't it, I mean, many countries don't really define what a metropolitan area is. But in the case of Zagreb, it's all the little towns that gravitate towards it, like Samobor, Velika Gorica, Zapresic, etc., which are unlikely to become defacto parts of City of Zagreb any time soon (the division between City of Zagreb and Zagreb County was made to bring more self-governance to those smaller cities which would likely suffer from underfinancing if they were governed from Zagreb, but it's an artificial division. All those towns are in 5-10 km radius from Zagreb proper and are connected to it through urban sprawl. So the whole county is really a part of wider Zagreb area, or metropolitan area. You can clearly see this here: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=zagreb,+croatia&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=11&om=1 --Dr.Gonzo 01:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some publication that says something like "the metro area includes X and Y"? While you may be correct, Wikipedia does not publish original research as a policy. Just find any published list of metro areas and cite that. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 12:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a term in Croatian "šire gradsko područje" which literally means "wider city area", which is analogue to "metropolitan area" in other countries. Anyway, I think this is a non-issue, even the wikipedia article on Zagreb talks about "wider city area"... I'm reverting your edit. --Dr.Gonzo 07:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A wider city region is not a metro area. If we do this we'll end up with Moscow Oblast, the entire South East and East of England, the Basin Parisienne, and so on. --Polaron | Talk 12:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no term for "metropolitan area" in croatian other than "šire gradsko podrucje"! It's the very definition of metropolitan area! It's only a problem of terminology! Please continue this discussion on the Talk:Largest_European_metropolitan_areas#Zagreb page. --Dr.Gonzo 16:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear roads editor,

You may have noticed some changes at WP:USRD lately. Some of them, like the cleanup templates and the stub templates, have been astounding and great. Unfortunately, others have been disturbing.

This has become evidenced by the departure of a few prominent editors at USRD, a few RFC's, and much fighting among USRD editors.

After the second RFC, many of us found the opportunity to take a step away from Wikipedia for a while--as a self-imposed wikibreak, or possibly on vacation.

The result of such introspection was that many of us were placing ourselves in a "walled garden" and on a self-imposed pedestal of authority over the roads department. Also, we were being hostile to a few users who were not agreeing with us.

In fact, IRC has been the main incarnation of this "walled garden." Decisions have been made there to conduct grudges and prejudices against a few valued USRD users with poor justification.

For this, we have come to apologize. We have come to ask your forgiveness.

In addition to this, we hope to work as one USRD team from now on and to encourage cooperation instead of the promotion of interests.

All users are welcome to collaborate on IRC, the newsletter, or anywhere else at USRD.

In the future, please feel free to approach us about any issues you may have.

Regards,

• Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
• TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats}
• master son^{T - C}
• Son^Talk
• (→O - RLY?)

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I couldn't help but notice that you are updating the List of countries by life expectancy article. However, it has come to my attention that the data you are using comes from the United Nations World Population Prospects: 2006 revision. I don't think this is the best source available, since all data in the report are future *estimates* for the 2005-2010 period, as opposed to actual, real statistics.

Furthermore, the numbers in the report don't belong to a particular year, but are average data from projections for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

While you've been making a great effort with the article, I don't think you are using the best sources. I think using real 2004 statistics from the United Nations Human Development Project, as opposed to estimates, is a better option. Data from the CIA world factbook should also be included, since it's more complete (it has pretty much all countries), and its more up to date (2007 estimates from 2006 data).

Anyway, I don't want to change anything without your approval, you seem to have put a lot of effort into the article. Regards,

--Lobizón 18:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA Factbook is probably not a good source since some of its figures are off compared to figures from the national census authorities. See the Talk page of the article for some examples. The problem with the CIA is their methodology is unknown unlike the UN World Population Prospects Report. If you want to use the Human Development Report from the UNDP instead, that should be fine. There's also data from the Population Reference Bureau, which can be another option. Bottom line is, feel free to change it to some other source *except* the CIA Factbook, which has many errors. --Polaron | Talk 19:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 11	18 August 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State and national updates Project news Cleanup system revamped Assessment Deletion debates Stubs renamed New York Featured member IRC channel goes global From the editors Minnesota bridge collapses One year after SRNC: A reflection
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 21:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I appreciate your interest in the Charles, Providence, Rhode Island article, but I'm moving it back. There were a bunch of links to the old location, including the template that actually appears in that article; it's also the standard format for the other 24 Providence neighborhoods.--Loodog 18:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason you sorted it as a redirect, when it is, in fact, not a redirect? Smartyshoe 12:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May i kindly remind you of the WP:3RR rule. I think you have breached it or are perilously close on this article. I would warn the other party as well but it is a constantly changing ip. I have therefore added in some hidden text asking for the person to read the talk page where i have started a discussion, which you are welcome to add to. Thanks Woodym555 13:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of unsourced statistics should not be subject to the 3-revert rule. --Polaron | Talk 13:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edits on the north branford page and you seem to be the only one that has edited the page that is actually from Connecticut. Your not from North Branford, are you? Also, I live in North Branford and have for 14 years. I'm new to wikipedia and would like to expand this article (for my first non-talk edit), but I'm not sure where to start or what information to add to an article like this. My main interest was seeing if your from North Branford so feel free to ignore the rest of my questions. Tainted42 18:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have Eastern U.S. maps from the late 1920s. Do any of these go into Maine? If so, can you let me know the earliest one that shows New Brunswick Route 2, and where it crosses the Saint John River? Thank you. --NE2 04:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1927 Automobile Blue Book shows Edmunston-Grand Falls on the north/east side of the river as unnumbered and also indicated as a gravel road. There is a recommended touring route associated with it though so it was apparently a well-used road even though it was unpaved. 1929-30 ALA Green Book already shows NB Route 2 designated along this section. Unfortunately, I returned the 1928 edition (which might be the earliest instance it would have been indicated on maps if it were numbered in 1927) to the library but I can take a look on Tuesday or Wednesday. I'm not sure if it was ever routed through Maine as stated in the article. --Polaron | Talk 14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about being unclear; can you confirm the crossings at Perth-Andover and Hartland too? --NE2 00:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and is the road on the U.S. side a higher-quality road in 1927? Or is that just a quirk on Rand McNally's part, only showing that one? --NE2 04:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing (sorry about all the questions...) - what's the highest-numbered route in New Brunswick in the late 1920s? Did Route 2A (southeast from Fredericton - see [9]) exist yet? --NE2 10:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1929 map, the crossings of Route 2 are at Grand Falls, Perth-Andover, and Hartland, as you mentioned. The 1929 map also does show Route 2A between Fredericton towards St. John. The highest numbered road in New Brunswick in the route log is Route 17. However, this log doesn't show minor routes so it may not necessarily be the actual highest numbered route in existence.

In the 1926 and 1927 Blue Book, the touring guides describe the road between Madawaska and Van Buren in Maine also as gravel (same as the Edmunston-Grand Falls road). However, in the 1926 description, it also says that the Canada side of the road is new (such a description is not present in the 1927 edition). Also, in the 1927 map, there is no river crossing at Hartland and a crossing at Woodstock is shown instead. --Polaron | Talk 18:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I've added the information to New Brunswick Route 2. Two more things, if you don't mind: there are no other suffixed routes of 2, and Route 9 went from Fredericton to Sussex, in 1929, right? --NE2 21:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. In 1929, 2A is the only suffixed route of 2, and Route 9 went along Fredericton-Sheffield-Cody-Sussex. I might not be able to check the 1928 map this week but will inform you when I get the chance. --Polaron | Talk 15:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article needs to be fixed, and I've made a few more changes myself, but I would not delete or redirect it considering the epic battle between him and the protagonist Kamille Bidan. Shaneymike 14:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 12 • September 1, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features WikiProject template system revamped Inactivity report Stub template changes continue	State and national updates Missouri New Jersey New York Wisconsin
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove ", Connecticut" from place pages. Every single other place in the United States, with the exception of a few major cities, has the state's name included. This includes small towns: please check, for example, Nevada or Texas, places whose articles I have never edited. Nyttend 23:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are not places but subsections of an incorporated town. These should are not under the city/town naming guideline and are more like neighborhoods. There is still an ongoing discussion at the settlement naming convention talk page about how to name places like these. --Polaron | Talk 23:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they're part of a town, but so are all unincorporated communities in Massachusetts, which all have the state name included. As far as neighborhoods: the only neighborhood in Rhode Island article has ", Rhode Island". Most neighborhoods in Massachusetts have ", Massachusetts", and only two have the parentheses. Please stop, for you are violating the convention found every state whose articles you have not moved. Nyttend 23:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, I have read the aforementioned neighborhood section; you will note, if you look lower, that I've commented even farther down. Nyttend 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other neighborhood articles for other cities that use the "neighborhood name (city name if necessary)" format. As mentioned in that discussion I linked to, there are currently two ways of naming neigborhood articles. Connecticut articles simply are in one of these formats. Note also that reocgnized unincorporated communities are mostly in the "community name, state" format. The ones that aren't are those that are not commonly known by this naming style. So, please leave the article titles as they were until the neighborhood naming guideline is settled. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 01:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there. Very nice picture you just added to the Killingworth, CT article.

The main question I have (and I've scanned around the WP Citation stuff) is if the text, written on the image, qualifies as an implicit citation (ie: not required to source), or how exactly that works. Seems fairly ambiguous.

If I missed an obvious rule, just let me know. Thanks in advance.--Curious brain 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for the advice. Took some of the edge off doing the citation(s). Bit new around here, and I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers. Thanks again, much appreciated.--Curious brain 05:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 13 • September 15, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features U.S. road editors attempt to achieve the two millionth Wikipedia article WikiProject page revamped Bannered U.S. Routes merged Quality first: WikiWork, stubs, and improvement of the project	State and national updates New York
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the data for the infobox come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedickey (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - no, I don't have any more recent data - I put together the useful parts that I could find (will keep it in mind for improvement though) Tedickey 12:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Polaron. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:

1. Please update your information at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
2. There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stated the cause of the problem wrong, as I realized later. The problem with the appearance of the New Haven article had to do with the fact that the next graphic (an image of a bridge) was in the next section and force the next section to start below the infobox. I'm still not sure that I quite have the explanation right. Thanks for not letting it slip by. It would be intesting to see what happens with an infobox in the lead and longer than lead text if the image was forced left (infobox defaults right). How does the layout work if image is in lead? How does it work if image is in first (or subsequent) section. DCDuring 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see that you have reverted the portions of my recent edits to this page which questioned sources and added ((refimprove)). Rightly so - I missed the table footnote about "unless otherwise specified" sourcing. Your reversions drew my attention to it, and that did resolve the points which I had in question. Cheers. -- Boracay Bill 01:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polaron. User:ThePromenader is back again leading his revert crusade. The Île-de-France article has been recently unlocked and only a few days later Promenader couldn't resist deleting a sentence about the metropolitan area of Paris ([10]), even though the sentence is backed by a source. He's also trying to rally people to support him (see User talk:ThePromenader#Other occupations?). It would be good if you could have a look at Talk:Île-de-France (region)#Here we go again. and give some input there. Thanks. Hardouin 12:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hardouin's only contributions these days is reverting, so look there for the crusade. Read the article talk page if you like, but this issue is closed. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for helping to defend against the IMHO flawed proposed changed of Myanmar to Burma. I'm retiring from that 'discussion' because of the time it's taking and I'm also finding it somewhat depressing reading some of the comments. I'm please to see I'm not the only one to see how flawed and lacking in evidence many of these common usage claims are and how many of them seem to be ignoring countries like India and those in SEA which is rather sad in this instance particularly given that they are close geographically and politically to Myanmar (well compared to much of the rest of the world) and many people in them use English as a second (and sometimes even first) language quite a lot. Nil Einne 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 14 • September 30, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Consolidation of participants list causes controversy Portal structure change Discussions regarding notability	State and national updates U.S. Routes New Jersey Pennsylvania New York State New York County Texas
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 01:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]