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

New subprojects

Tennessee

The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was project created. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of activity in Tennessee lately. Even though we are currently discouraging creation of new subprojects, I think Tennessee could use one. They have 2 (maybe more) editors, and could use a page of their own to come up with standards and discussion, and join in with the rest of USRD. Please post below if you're willing to sign up for this project, or if you're opposed to the creation of WP:TNSR for whatever reason. —Scott5114 ↗ 08:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's enough editors that will consistently contribute there, then it sounds good to me. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 08:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a subproject would be a good idea....I'll sign up for it. Pepper6181 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think one should be organized...contact those who are invovled with TN road articles. --Son (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I found your note on my talk page. I have recently added two road articles, and to be honest, those two are probably going to be the last road articles, I wrote them to eliminate red links in other articles that bothered me. This to look at my future activity regarding roads. However, I think it is a good idea to start the project. doxTxob \ ^talk 22:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Auto Trails

The result was project created.^Mitch32^contribs 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing to create an Auto Trails task force. Auto trails fall neither under state WPs nor anything else we have under USRD/HWY. Also, most state WPs don't have the resources to work on articles of state maintained roads and Auto Trails. --Son (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. State subprojects have neither the resources nor capacity to deal with auto trails. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You could say that state subprojects don't have the resources to work on U.S. Routes or Interstates either, but they handle those fine. I have actually been thinking about an auto trails task force for a while; it seems like a good idea to get all the information together in one place. I'm worried that it will be rather dead though. --NE2 20:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I would certainly help; I've dug up some information on talk:auto trail, and we might want to better organize it. --NE2 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Support, this sounds like a good idea to me. The Interstate/U.S. Route comparison really holds no water, as it is far, far easier to dig up information on Interstate Highways and U.S. Routes than it is on some obscure auto trail that only a handful of people know existed. Also, no one's debating whether or not Interstate Highways or U.S. Routes are covered by project scopes - in at least NY and PA (and probably everywhere else too), they are, at their core, state highways, without any kind of interpretation or extension. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Except in the few (if any?) states that didn't take over state highways until the late 1920s, auto trails were state highways too. A better comparison might be with turnpikes; turnpikes weren't, when operating, state highways, but are very relevant to the history of the state highways. --NE2 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  - This is all made using an extension or interpretation of the term "state highway", whereas my comments about IH/USH are rooted in fact. You're also missing the point that it takes a die-hard roadgeek with some serious resources (which eliminates probably 90% of USRD) to do any kind of research on pre-1920s roadways. In any event, some projects have a very defined scope - NY for example is limited to the current numbered state highway system, established (for all purposes) in 1924. When tagging "for" a project, their scope must be honored. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    - What are you talking about? State highways are roads maintained by the state; the state usually maintained auto trails in the later days. California's state highway system began in 1895, when it took over the Lake Tahoe Wagon Road, not in 1947, when the auto clubs stopped marking numbered routes. I'm also not tagging as part of the WikiProject; I'm tagging as a "[state] road transport article", which it certainly is. --NE2 22:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      - Here we go again... The category names were made for easy compatibility with the US template, regardless of scope. I believe it was you who made this mess, making the name "road transport" instead of going by project scope. What you're doing is unilaterally expanding the scope of every project because of flaws in your own code. I can already predict your response - you won't see it as a flaw. But I do, and so likely do the other projects whose scopes are well short of every minor road in the state. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        Nobody said the categories have to match projects. And not every "minor road" relates to road transport; some have always been streets as part of a cityscape. --NE2 22:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        Huh? The reason that the current USRD template exists was to eliminate redundancy between the state highway project templates, which were used to tag articles according to the project's scope. That was the original point of state tagging in the event that you forgot. Yes, no one said that categories have to match, but no one said anyone has to tag based on categories alone. The initial categories existed only for WikiProject assessment; it was you who expanded it, without any discussion, to be what you described above. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        Because it's otherwise impossible to determine what goes in each project. Wikipedia:WikiProject New York State routes#Scope would seem to exclude any route that did not exist after NYSDOT was formed in 1967, but that's obviously not the intent. If, for instance, there was an article history of Interstate 87, or history of the Adirondack Northway, that would belong in the project. So why not history of New York State Route 3, which would contain details about the route before 1924, when it was the Theodore Roosevelt International Highway? Auto trails are part of the history of current routes, just as former state route numbers are. To have a complete history, you can't stop at the point when route signs were posted; you have to include the full history. --NE2 22:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        Then that's an issue with the project in question, one that should be settled by the project and not by one editor. You are, of course, free to bring this issue up to each project but it is not up to one editor - not you, not me, not anyone - to decide what a project covers. If you can't tell if it is included in a project or not, then don't tag it. No one is requiring you to do so. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        It's an issue with the interpretation of the scope, which is clearly intended to cover history. Why is it a problem to put auto trails in? --NE2 22:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- (de-indent) Everything can be interpreted differently by everyone. It's apparent that your interpretation does not match those of others, in which case the differences should be discussed at the individual projects, like I said before. This isn't the correct venue for this. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - By all means, go for it. It would be better suited. (Its better than some of my ideas).^Mitch32^contribs 22:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Any objections to type=trails? --NE2 22:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm okay with it, as long as it's removed from the state projects.—Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto. Adding it while keeping them in states would be useless. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Should the same be done for U.S. Highways, Interstates, and New England Routes? How about an article like Lincoln Highway in Pennsylvania (pretend it's not a redirect) or Wendover Cutoff (which was a part of the Victory Highway)? --NE2 23:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    - Auto trails are not U.S. Highways, Interstates, or New England Routes, nor is the converse true. So no. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      - It's an analogy: they're all multi-state types of roads. --NE2 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        You mean a false analogy? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        What's false about it? They're roads maintained by the state and named or numbered by someone else. If I were to write an article about the Lincoln Highway in California, would that not belong in the California project just as U.S. Route 48 in California does? --NE2 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        Auto trails were not maintained by the state. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        Yes, they were. The 1895 Lake Tahoe Wagon Road, the first state highway in California, was part of the Lincoln Highway. Large portions of the Lincoln Highway were taken over after the 1910 bond issue, with the final pieces in 1915 and 1919. --NE2 00:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
        However, auto trails are not within the scope of the project, and are clearly not intended to be. Perhaps project scopes need to be rewritten to make this distinction clearer. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
        They're clearly within the scope of USRD, and, since each state project is a subproject that covers that state, it would make sense to include them. They were also state highways, and thus clearly fall into the scope of state highway projects; they are mentioned in articles such as California State Route 160. Why are you opposed to including anything dealing with auto trails? --NE2 00:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
        Consensus has spoken, and it is clearly not with you. That is why. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
        Consensus, or you guys agreeing on IRC to oppose me? Consensus requires discussion between both sides; I don't understand your objection to auto trails, so that discussion has not hapened. --NE2 00:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[indent reset] The reason we oppose these falling into our categories is because it's basically noise that gets in the way of what the projects are focused on. It also adds more work on the "stubs to be fixed" pile when the state subprojects have no interest or available manpower to fix them. Same thing as with the streets subproject. I don't understand your desire to shoehorn articles into projects that don't want them. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If the state subproject has "no interest or available manpower", who does? I'm doing some work with California right now, and I can definitely help with auto trails. Sources will be the same as for early state highway history: old newspaper articles and the like. --NE2 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's California; for most of the rest of the county, probably nobody. Go ahead and help with the auto trails if that floats your boat; that's partly why we're devoting a task force to it, so that people who like them have a place to focus on them. But forcing them on states that would rather focus on making articles on present-day routes not suck seems unhelpful at the least. Remember, this is a project-space management problem, and thus we have the latitude to be subjective till the cows come home if we so desire. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about the following: articles like Lincoln Highway in California go in trails and CA, since the expertise of California editors is helpful, but the main article Lincoln Highway goes only in trails. If nobody called the trail by its name in the state, don't make an article: for instance Jefferson Davis Highway in California would probably not exist. Many that do exist will actually be redirects, like Lincoln Highway in Pennsylvania to U.S. Route 30 in Pennsylvania; the latter would be part of PA and trails. One- or two-state trails, like El Camino Real will have details that state editors can add, and should be in the state project. Does this sound reasonable? --NE2 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[indent reset] Auto trails are vastly different from state highways. Just because one auto trail is a state highway or happened to be one doesn't mean they all are. Thus, they do not fall under the purview of any **SH project, and the **SH projects were likely intended for numbered state highways only. Furthermore, placing the auto trails in with state highways is a bad idea, for different editors edit the auto trails articles since vastly differing expertise is required. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

See my comment above: the expertise for early state highway history is the same as for auto trails. I know because I've done a lot of historical work. --NE2 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Support those trail articles are extremely stubby and need something to improve them. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Support re above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Please help complete Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/auto trails; right now only Talk:Lincoln Highway is tagged for it, so we can make sure that everything is done as we want it. --NE2 23:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at WT:USRD related to this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads ((subst:#if:|(({1))}|debate)). Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Montana State Highways

The result of the debate was project not created. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be a good project for Montana, which needs serious creation of articles and work on exsisting ones. Juliancolton Talk 17:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A formal WikiProject is not necessary unless there are multiple dedicated editors that will work on creating and improving articles. As of now, this does not appear to be the case. --Polaron | Talk 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly work on it, but I suppose I will have to wait to see if there are any editors that are willing to do it. Juliancolton Talk 20:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Polaron, wikiprojects are to aid collaboration amongst editors, if there is only one editor, then there is nothing really to collaborate on. Also, you certainly don't need a project to create and work on articles. --Holderca1^talk 21:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Reinstation of NY County Routes

Probably should've waited till after ArbCom for this, but we do have a number of editors interesed in NY county routes, including me. I have a really gut feeling that the amount of CR articles may go up again. I do wish to bring back the project as a task force instead, because a full-fledged project is not needed at this date in time. This came more out of gut feeling and am proposing the reinstation as a precaution. It'll have the benefits of lower NY wikiwork and creating less of a burden on the project. Also, the notability guidelines would be stricter on roads, limiting it to certain ones. If you need more information or a list of interested users, just say so. Voice your opinion, please.^Mitch32^contribs 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it sounds like a great idea, and I would certainly join up and help out with it. Juliancolton Talk 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiWork would remain the same as the CRs would still fall under New York road transport. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake. ^Mitch32^contribs 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Support but with several conditions. I am supporting this only with the intent of providing a centralized location for discussion for improving the existing series of county route list articles and not for the creation of more articles. If the reinstation of this project as a task force leads to an increase in either standalone non-notable county route articles or result in the creation of more county route list articles while ignoring the horrible already existing ones, I would suggest that this venture be terminated (as my opinion on this would then be oppose). – TMF 03:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Territorial

I'm proposing a task force for all highways that aren't part of a U.S. state; namely, this task force would allow a place to put resources for D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, Johnson Atoll, American Samoa, and so forth. The reason for a combined task force is because each of these localities (except Puerto Rico) only has a few highways to begin with and so it would be inefficient to give each a task force. If Puerto Rico gains more editors in the future, they could found their own task force/subproject as needed, since Puerto Rico has a sufficient number of highways for an individual subproject to maintain.

Also, if anyone can come up with a good name that encompasses all of these (most are territories, but D.C. is a district and Puerto Rico is a commonwealth), please suggest it. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically, Puerto Rico is a territory as well, a commonwealth is just a type of territory. There really isn't going to be a name that would encompass them all to include D.C. since D.C. is fully part of the U.S., while the others aren't. I suppose the best you could do is U.S Roads not located in a state. --Holderca1^talk 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We are missing Northern Mariana Islands which has highways as well. --Holderca1^talk 15:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew I was forgetting one. :P Well, let's just call it "Territorial" then, even though it includes D.C., because "Task Force for Roads Not Located In A State" is pretty unwieldy, and we don't need to be all exact about it anyway. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's my $0.02. I support the idea of a combined TF for the territories (and district). I'm partial to the idea of a possible Pacific/Caribbean east/west split if in the future (or now) it's decided that there's enough articles/interest in one area to maintain that separately. The other split possibility is PR/everything else since PR does have interstates assigned on paper. They don't have to split now, but in the future, it might be desirable. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to lump DC in with the rest - it's a city with freeways and canceled freeways, and doesn't have the issue that Puerto Rico does where you have to know Spanish to find good sources. --NE2 09:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have enough articles to warrant a taskforce. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So don't give it a taskforce. Who says everything needs one? --NE2 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Then there's no place to keep resources. Why do you find some reason to oppose everything the rest of us propose? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep resources on a subpage of USRD. Why do you always find some reason to abuse the fallacy of many questions? --NE2 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Michigan County-Designated Highways

I'd like to propose the formation of a task force under WP:MISH devoted to the county-designated highway system, and any other county roads of great notability in Michigan. As the CDHs have their numbers assigned by MDOT, there was a list formed, but some of them (C-66, H-58) are notable enough to be given separate articles. The infobox templates were created back in 2006, but at the time, I didn't have the graphics skils to create the necessary "neutered" shields for the browser in the infobox. Today I started expanding H-58 out into its own article, and over time, I'd like to do the same for others. Quite a few may stay as redirects to the master list for a while until source materials are found, but I'd like to aggregate the project together under a task force banner, similar to what's being proposed for NYCR. I'd like to see if we can make a go of a WP:MICH as a task force. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would tentatively support this if it is shown to be a subject of interest by several editors. Otherwise, perhaps a simple subpage branching off the MSHP project page would be in order. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- "a simple subpage branching off the MSHP project page" – isn't that what a task force is? – TMF 03:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You really don't need to make a proposal or ask permission for this in my opinion. This is for creating new projects, not task forces. If you need a task force to improve a subset of articles within your project, go for it. It would be invisible to the rest of USRD anyway. --Holderca1^talk 12:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Oppose. --Rs chen 7754 00:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Colorado

I hope I'm not spamming this page.
There are quite a few Colorado editors out there that don't really have standards. Most of them are minor editors without user pages, but there are a couple still active. I don't know if some of these articles are simply outdated, but articles like Colorado State Highway 1 don't even have the standard wikitable for the exit list. Besides, other projects like WikiProject Colorado have little recognition for the work that these editors have done on these articles. Of course, I couldn't manage it by myself, but this is just a suggestion. Pzoxicuvybtnrm 02:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons as below. You don't need a WikiProject to edit articles. --Rs chen 7754 03:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, also for the reasons stated below. The state-level projects are really a place for more focused and state-specific collaboration takes place. New subproject pages won't be seriously considered unless there are multiple active editors willing to be part of the project. All highway articles under the USRD project scope automatically use the USRD Standards by default, so creating state-level projects for this reason is unnecessary. --LJ (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per above. They've already said all that needs to be said. – TMF 04:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - USRD's standards adequately cover the state's articles. ---Dough 48 72 02:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Oppose. --Rs chen 7754 00:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

New Mexico

New Mexico's state roads need a lot of work. I was wondering if I could create a subproject, which would be quickly be demoted to a task force, to help improve Wikipedia's coverage on these articles. Pzoxicuvybtnrm 00:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see a need for either a subproject or a task force if only one editor will be working on articles there. The only two reasons that task forces or subprojects are really needed in the first place are for collaboration or to specify tweaks to the general USRD standards. Neither seems to apply here. – TMF 00:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I didn't really understand guidelines. Pzoxicuvybtnrm 00:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. We just got done demoting a whole bunch of inactive state projects to task forces, so I imagine there won't be much will to start creating new subprojects/task forces right now. Please don't let this discourage you from editing, however. As a single editor, the best thing to do is to just start working on the articles. Be familiar with USRD standards and ask at USRD if you have questions or need some help with guidelines or the like. If you find there are more editors willing to stay actively involved with New Mexico highway articles, then the issue of task force/project creation can be revisited at that time. --LJ (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - USRD's standards adequately cover the state's articles. ---Dough 48 72 02:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Not created. --Rs chen 7754 22:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

New Mexico, redux

I, as well as Fortguy (talk · contribs) somewhat, have been working on NM, and I would like a task force page, I know theres not enough for a full project, but somewhere where I can dump information at, and possibly use as a jumping board for a Red Link Reduction I want to work on next year. Rschen7754 pointed me here. --Admrboltz (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no issues with this. Support. –Fredddie ™ 00:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If this gets off the ground, count me in. Support. Fortguy (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
My answer is not a straightforward yes or no. I'm willing to support this on a provisional level and revisit the activity level at a later date (say in June) and re-evaluate. Six months should be plenty to gauge how successful this endeavor is. Imzadi 1979 → 00:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Support would have more activity than most current task forces. --Rs chen 7754 01:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Support - I do not see any harm in having a task force page listing standards specific to NM. Dough 48 72 02:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If it's just to have a place to put NM resources, that's why we have WP:USRD/RES. If it's for actual collaboration, then I could support this. Based on what I've read, I'm not convinced that a full task force is necessary. – TMF 03:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Request withdrawn. I will just use the resources page. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Demotion of subprojects

March 16

See the IRC meeting log for discussion. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Kentucky is being demoted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Utah demoted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional demotions

It's my suggestion that all subprojects that have 0 active members should be demoted to task force levelo projects. --Son 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Have there been any additional demotions since then? Any discussion whatsoever? --Son 21:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, Kentucky was re-promoted though. master son^{T - C} 18:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Nevada State County Routes

The following is an archived roads discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merged into Nevada task force. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagged for demotion. This shouldn't exist when Nevada state routes doesn't even have a full project. Not sure any of the roads are notable to begin with that would fall under this project. At a minimum should be merged into the Nevada state route task force, at a maximum sent to WP:MfD. --Holderca1 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. I can't decide whether MFD or the task force is the better option, as like you said, there probably aren't any CRs notable enough to deserve an article. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There's County Routes in Nevada? I know of the "one" in Vegas - but if that's the only one - This would be more of an MfD to me :? master son^{T - C} 18:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking a quick glance at a map, it appears that there are county routes in several Nevada counties, but none deserving of an article. Some aren't even paved. I say speedy merge into the NV task force. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, merge complete, not really much of anything to merge. --Holderca1 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Harrisburg Area Roads

The result of the discussion was that the project was folded into WP:PASH. --Son (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The scope has always been too narrow, and no additional standards (besides project tagging) have been incorporated. In addition to this, this project has been inactive for a long time. I suggest demotion to a task force of WP:PASH, redirection to WP:PASH, or deletion altogether. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As the project creator, I'm just going to go ahead and fold it into WP:PASH. --Son (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment - Okay, this was opened and closed before I even saw it, but why would this get folded into WP:PASH? Don't they cover different things? Wouldn't it be better to fold into WP:USST? --Holderca1^talk 13:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they cover the same things. The former WP:HbgAR covered roads in the Harrisburg, PA metro area and was limited to covering PA routes and PA quadrant routes. Any streets that might fall under WP:USST (such as Colonial Road or Progress Avenue) are quadrant routes and would fall under WP:PASH. --Son (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject California County Routes

The result of the debate was demote to CASH task force. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This project has been largely inactive over the last year. I propose that it gets demoted to a task force under WP:CASH. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Demote. Inactive and can be adequately maintained by CASH. See reasons given for demoting HbgAR above. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Demote. Inactive and can be covered by CASH. --Son (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Demote. Also look at stubs again and see if the two categories can be merged. — master son^{T - C} 00:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Demote. No reason for this to exist separately, even as a task force. --NE2 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that I'm waiting for Arbcom to close before carrying this out. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What does ArbCom have to do with this? --NE2 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just in case this is interpreted as a scope change for some reason. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think both "sides" are in agreement that this is non-controversial. --NE2 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I also support demotion to a task force. I just haven't had time to maintain it lately. But I would hate to see it subsumed as a fair amount of work has gone into it and several of these roads are of note. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Kansas State Highways

The result of the debate was Demote. The Oppose votes seem WP:POINTish, and even so, it's 4-2, which is probably as good as we're gonna get. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Lack of members. I can detect very little activity; what work is accomplished is done by peripheral editors. Suggest demotion to task force.—Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I don't really see the point, does making it a task force going to attract more editors or somehow automatically improve the articles? I say leave as is, doesn't make much difference where the project is located. --Holderca1^talk 19:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Making it a task force removes the illusion that there are editors. Also, WikiProjects are deleted through MFD all the time for lack of activity. By pushing it under USRD, this prevents that from happening. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  - I don't recall any of the USRD projects ever being nominated. Also, you haven't notified the project just in case someone has it watched and doesn't have this page watched. --Holderca1^talk 20:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    - That doesn't mean it can't happen, however. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
      - At any rate, I am not convinced it needs to be demoted. --Holderca1^talk 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        Is there any benefit to leaving it as it is? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        What benefit is there to leave any project where it is? --Holderca1^talk 20:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        Well, a WikiProject is supposed to have an active community of editors. Kansas does not even a single regularly active editor. Also, people who wish to edit an article may try to seek collaboration at that project, yet there's nobody home to answer.—Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        Okay, so how would that be resolved with it being a task force? Say an editor wants to edit a Kansas article and posts something on the Kansas task force page, you still have the same problem with no one home. --Holderca1^talk 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        They would be directed to the USRD talk page, either through a notice on the task force talk page or through a redirect. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        Why couldn't that be done with the current project talk page? I personally think this page should be made historical as it just adds extra unneeded administrative bureaucracy that doesn't have any effect on the quality of the articles. --Holderca1^talk 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        Just to clarify: you're opposing this because you disagree with the idea of promotions and demotions, not Kansas being demoted in particular? If so, I think it'd be more fruitful to take it to WT:USRD than to oppose this on the basis of objecting to the process. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(reset) I oppose the process and Kansas in particular. It wasn't listed properly, neither the project nor any of the contributors that list Kansas have been notified. Kansas is also a project in pretty good standing with a better quality rating than USRD and Wikipedia as a whole. It also has a featured article. --Holderca1^talk 01:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The featured article was written by SPUI and I, and I believe before the Kansas project existed. Having the FA is why it has a better quality rating. Tagging the page now. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Demote all projects that do nothing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Although I would quickly say yeah - demote it, I do hear Holderca1's concerns - and also really think this is no big deal. — master son^{T - C} 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: Now that I think about it - No one on WP has nominated it for WP:MFD yet - so why demote it? — master son^{T - C} 03:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Support Dormant projects should be noted as such. Agree that this is a way to keep others from deleting the project in its entiretyDavemeistermoab (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Support, has no editors and no activity. The project page is fairly basic as well. Also, by making it a task force, the possibility that it gets sent to MfD for inactivity is greatly reduced. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just out of curiousity since this argument has been brought up, how would someone determine that a project is inactive? --Holderca1^talk 13:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  - The project page hasn't been edited since last November. The user who founded the project hasn't contributed since last June. Also, this shows that only 3 Kansas pages have been edited within the past 30 days, and one of those was by a bot. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut

The result of the discussion was: Demote to a task force of USRD. --LJ (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [1]. --Rs chen 7754 01:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Demote as this is an inactive project. Longstanding USRD convention is that inactive projects are demoted to task forces when they are not being used by any editor and brought out of the mothballs whenever interest revives (regardless of their scope or existing article quality; demotion and promotion are done on activity levels only). As a task force, the projects' collective resources are stored under the USRD umbrella and the needs of these articles are highlighted by their placement under USRD. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Demote - Per above. ---Dough 48 72 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Demote, inactive. – TMF 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote - above sums it up nicely. CL (T · C) — 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote I used to be the only editor significantly working on it plus the current project is a bit non-standard anyway so it will better to have it more directly under USRD control. --Polaron | Talk 17:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote as inactive, though I note CT does have a fairly strong base of content. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Illinois

The result of the discussion was: Demote to a task force of USRD. --LJ (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [2]. --Rs chen 7754 01:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Demote - Per above. ---Dough 48 72 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Demote, inactive. – TMF 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote - above sums it up nicely. CL (T · C) — 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote as above. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Indiana

The result of the discussion was: Demote to a task force of USRD. The one user in opposition did not provide sufficient arguments to weigh against statements favoring the demotion. --LJ (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [3]. --Rs chen 7754 01:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Project pages are inactive largely because each highway already has its own article now, but article improvement is still being done within the framework of WP:INDIANA. I would support US Roads taking over the project and demoting it to taskforce. The scope seems to limited for a project of its own IMO. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel it should remain its own project. Indiana road articles form a substantial enough base to support continuing the project; and improvement is indeed still continuing. Omnedon (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How would Indiana road articles be harmed if the project was merged into USRD? --Rs chen 7754 04:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no benefit to merging it; existing as its own project seems to have worked fine for a long time. Omnedon (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We're trying to demote inactive projects to remove structures and extra bureaucratic red tape that we don't need. --Rs chen 7754 04:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless I see no benefit to the Indiana road articles from doing this, and I don't think the existence of the Indiana subproject results in "extra bureaucratic red tape". It does allows it to have an identity within USRD, which I see as beneficial. Omnedon (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How do task forces currently not have an identity within USRD? --Rs chen 7754 04:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the standard method of operation for USRD subprojects. Task forces are demoted to flag their dormancy. They still have an identity within USRD, it's just that that identity is temporarily more closely tied to USRD (the Indiana subproject is "crashing at USRD's place" until it can get back on its feet, so to speak). —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Demote - Per above. ---Dough 48 72 15:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

When I toss out the multitude of edits related to MOS tweaks, the addition and removal of a template, and edits to the state highway list, there's very, very little left. Demote as inactive. – TMF 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote - above sums it up nicely. CL (T · C) — 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote - Nothing to go by really, so inactive surely. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Florida

The result of the discussion was: Keep as a project. For now, at least. With no clear consensus here, I'm going to give this project the benefit of the doubt. There does appear to be activity, including some by a user listed as a participant. I would suggest the "registered participants" be notified of this action, and that activity be further monitored. If after a month or so has passed and article/project activity hasn't noticeably increased, this project can be renominated for demotion at that time. --LJ (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [4]. --Rs chen 7754 01:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Demote - Per above. ---Dough 48 72 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If we're going solely on activity, then this probably shouldn't be demoted. It's more active than the other states listed here, but the article quality is dreadful. There was a time when we demoted projects due to awful article quality, but if we're not anymore then I have to oppose demotion . – TMF 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- But is it useful to keep a subproject where most of the edits do not help article quality? ---Dough4872 15:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  - From Scott above, paraphrasing: "demotion and promotion are done on activity levels only, regardless of their scope or existing article quality". I interpret that to mean that the quality of the edits being made is not grounds for demotion. – TMF 20:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    - However, it appears the Florida project does not have many active members who made edits recently, most of the edits came from random users. ---Dough4872 21:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
      - I think the problem in this is that there's too much subjectivity and vagueness in both the text on USRD/SUB (written by Scott) and in his post above. Both things mention "activity levels", but isn't clear whether that phrase calls into question how many edits the articles get or just if there are a few consistent people editing. At this point, I don't know anymore. It also leaves inactivity up for interpretation, leading to subjectivity. – TMF 21:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
        I wrote that subjectively on purpose so that we are not forced to act in a rigid manner. Obviously if nobody's editing, that's "inactive". If the only edits are gnomish edits like template work, copyediting, or such—or work by some USRD person passing through—then that's "inactive". One person making shitty inconsistent articles? Well, if the project exists, they're not paying any heed to it, so it's not "active" in the sense of "this project page is actively being used"... Two people making shitty inconsistent articles? Now you probably have to bite the bullet and call it active, because if they were going to collab in their shittiness, then they'd need a place for it to happen. Unless you could find some way to show they were being shitty completely independent of one another. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep as is, for now - I actually read what TMF said and I have to agree... yes, most articles are stubs but it shows potential. Give it a few more months, encourage the random people editing to join USRD, etc, etc, and then consider demotion. CL (T · C) — 16:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Not exactly inactive, and if demoted there's an even greater chance the articles will never get anywhere. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Iowa

The result of the discussion was: Demote to USRD task force. --LJ (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [5]. --Rs chen 7754 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Demote - There is only one active editor, Fredddie, who said the Iowa project should become a task force. ---Dough 48 72 21:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote - above sums it up nicely. CL (T · C) — 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
One active editor → demote. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote per Dough. – TMF 21:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Kentucky

The result of the discussion was: Demote to USRD task force. --LJ (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [6]. --Rs chen 7754 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Demote - Inactive. ---Dough 48 72 21:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote - above sums it up nicely. CL (T · C) — 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote as inactive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote, inactive. In hindsight, it should never have been repromoted. Oh well. – TMF 21:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Massachusetts

The result of the discussion was: Keep as a project. In this case, two objections came from registered participants of the project, both of which have had some activity in the recent changes log. This says a bit more to me in a situation where consensus isn't completely clear. Hopefully, the active editors will pick up the editing a bit. If after a month or two, article/project activity isn't improving, this could be renominated. --LJ (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [7]. --Rs chen 7754 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ - It appears this project has two members, Sswonk and Ktr101, that have made recent edits to MA road articles. ---Dough4872 21:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't seen Sswonk on the recent changes list. Ktr101 is just adding templates to articles. --Rs chen 7754 21:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see "Keep" statement below. Sswonk (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

- - Demote - Realizing that, this project is inactive and should be demoted. ---Dough4872 21:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    - I was adding templates because I was focusing on Cape Cod roads. Some of the articles need fixing, so we can go from there on future work. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Demote - above sums it up nicely. CL (T · C) — 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Not the most active project we have, but there are a steady stream of edits. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep – I am not actively making changes to the numbered route articles, but have been updating maps on Commons and will continue that effort. Those updates are not reflected on en:wp as the already linked map image name does not change. There are enough people working on the articles within the project scope to justify keeping it at WP:MASH. Sswonk (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
If the only thing going on is the updating of maps, then the articles aren't changing. As such, I say demote for inactivity. – TMF 21:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I need to step back for a moment, I guess, from this vote. I can't understand what the motivation for demotion is. In the case of this project, which is in place and where participant Ktr101 has objected to demotion at the main USRD talk page[8], there appears to be a need to explain what purpose demotion serves. It's a project, not an unreferenced spam article that is going through AfD. Unless there are zero objections to demotion, I think the project should stay autonomous. Sswonk (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Well, in the last 30 days there's been no substantial edits by Ktr101 to any route articles, so I personally wouldn't consider him to be very active in the project. I see his objection to the project's demotion in a similar way that I see the one editor's objection in Indiana, where that editor hasn't edited an Indiana road article in months. Anyway, all I can go by when I evaluate projects are the recent changes linked above, the statements of editors, and whether those statements reflect reality. The recent changes for MA are fairly quiet and the editors don't appear to be actively improving the textual content of the project's articles, which should be the primary objective of the project. I'm not trying to belittle your efforts to improve MA articles by updating maps; what I'm saying is that at the end of the day the true test of a project's activity is how much development is going on with the articles themselves. At MASH, very little of this is occurring. – TMF 23:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep as a member. I will get back into editing soon, I've just been focusing on other things. I still have two and a half weeks left of break, so I'll go from here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also, let it be known that this site has a wealth of invaluable information, and if we can add it to the project, there will be a lot of articles that will have major expansions in the coming years. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  - Just a reminder, if that's a self-published source you can't use it directly as a source in articles. You'll need other sources to verify information in the articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Missouri

The result of the discussion was: Demote to USRD task force. --LJ (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [9]. --Rs chen 7754 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Demote - Inactive. ---Dough 48 72 21:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote - above sums it up nicely. CL (T · C) — 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote - the main active contributor left Wikipedia long ago. I attempted to help out when I lived in MO but didn't really have enough knowledge to edit much outside the Springfield area, and, despite MoDOT's help (they even called me to ask how they could help!), never could get good sources. Now, they do have their map archive online, but I'm going to have my plate full with OK. Hopefully we can get some MO (and K-) editors at some point—MO needs a lot of help. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote, inactive. – TMF 21:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nebraska

The result of the discussion was: Demote to USRD task force. --LJ (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [10]. --Rs chen 7754 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Demote - Inactive. ---Dough 48 72 21:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote - above sums it up nicely. CL (T · C) — 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote - Was it ever active in the first place? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Demote, inactive. – TMF 21:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire

The result of the discussion was demote to task force. --LJ (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [11]. --Rs chen 7754 21:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - Inactive. ---Dough 48 72 17:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Demote This was never really active to begin with. --Polaron | Talk 18:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Demote - Minimal activity outside of maintenance using AWB. --Fredddie ™ 17:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

North Carolina

The result of the discussion was demote to task force. Most of the recent non-maintenance editing activity has been by anonymous users, with some by users in favor of demotion. --LJ (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [12].(Note: As of late there has been a small amount of activity, but I'll still make the proposal so we can discuss). --Rs chen 7754 21:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - Does not appear to have significant activity from established members. ---Dough 48 72 17:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Demote - Sporadic activity. --Fredddie ™ 17:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep, albeit with not much confidence. There is a steady stream of content edits, and I believe it can be beneficial to leave the task force as-is for the moment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohio

The result of the discussion was demote to task force. --LJ (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [13]. --Rs chen 7754 21:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - Inactive. ---Dough 48 72 17:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Demote - Sporadic activity. --Fredddie ™ 17:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Demote, very few recent content edits. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tennessee

The result of the discussion was demote to task force. --LJ (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [14]. --Rs chen 7754 21:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - Inactive. ---Dough 48 72 17:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Demote - Sporadic-to-no recent activity. --Fredddie ™ 17:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Demote, very few recent content edits. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Virginia

The result of the discussion was demote to task force. --LJ (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [15]. --Rs chen 7754 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - More activity than some, but not enough to warrant its own WP. --Fredddie ™ 23:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - Inactive. ---Dough 48 72 01:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - IMO all but the most active of projects should be combined. I'm all for simplifying structure.Dave (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

West Virginia

The result of the discussion was demote to task force. --LJ (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [16]. --Rs chen 7754 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - Small amount of activity, not enough to warrant its own WP. --Fredddie ™ 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - Inactive. The tag at the top summarizes it. ---Dough 48 72 01:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - IMO all but the most active of projects should be combined. I'm all for simplifying structure.Dave (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Vermont

The result of the discussion was demote to task force. --LJ (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [17]. --Rs chen 7754 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - Most of the recent activity belongs to routes which cross into NY. --Fredddie ™ 23:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - Inactive. ---Dough 48 72 01:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - IMO all but the most active of projects should be combined. I'm all for simplifying structure.Dave (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wisconsin

The result of the discussion was demote to task force. --LJ (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive project - [18]. --Rs chen 7754 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - Sporadic activity. --Fredddie ™ 23:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - Inactive. ---Dough 48 72 01:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - I used to be a member, I haven't seen the one really active member around much. I still do an occasional edit, but that's not a reason to keep it open. I can edit just as easily after it's closed. No coordination is needed. Royal broil 06:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Demote - IMO all but the most active of projects should be combined. I'm all for simplifying structure.Dave (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The result of the debate was

Leave as is. --Rschen7754 22:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Rhode Island

What? A full-fledged subproject with only one participant? Why is it being allowed? Pzoxicuvybtnrm 04:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The participants list is not the only indicator of activity in a state-level project. In the recent round of subproject demotions, editing activity of the state's highway articles was the primary consideration. It could be that people editing in Rhode Island are listed as nationwide/regional editors at USRD instead of on the RI-specific participants list. --LJ (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, no projects need to be created or destroyed at this time. I will revisit the situation in June at the earliest. --Rs chen 7754 07:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Georgia

Demoted to task force. -- LJ ↗ 11:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Low activity - [19]. --Rs chen 7754 22:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Demote per Rschen --Admrboltz (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote. Imzadi 1979 → 00:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote. Dough 48 72 02:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote I agree. --Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote. –CG^Talk 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote Not seeing much in the way of centralized activity. [20] – TMF 06:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oregon

Demoted to task force. -- LJ ↗ 11:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Low activity - [21]. --Rs chen 7754 22:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Demote per Rschen --Admrboltz (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote. Imzadi 1979 → 00:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote. Dough 48 72 02:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote I agree. --Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote. –CG^Talk 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote Not seeing much in the way of centralized activity. [22] – TMF 06:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Rhode Island

Demoted to task force. -- LJ ↗ 11:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Low activity - [23]. --Rs chen 7754 22:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Demote per Rschen --Admrboltz (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote. Imzadi 1979 → 00:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote. Dough 48 72 02:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote I agree. --Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote. –CG^Talk 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Demote Project's been dormant for over half a year. [24] – TMF 06:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirection of task forces

Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida State Roads/County Roads

The result of the discussion was: Merge and Redirect to WP:FLSR. Hopefully those interested will ensure that any related templates, userboxes, etc. are dealt with appropriately. -- LJ ↗ 19:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A task force for a scope that is no longer notable. --Rs chen 7754 05:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge (to WP:FLSR) and purge. –Fredddie ™ 06:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Merge per Fredddie V C 13:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Redirect - Per nom. Dough 48 72 20:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Redirect and then nominate any affected templates for deletion/CSD. Note, the ((USRD)) banner should probably be left unaltered, except to change the link generated from FLCR to FLSR. Tagging a CR with a project tag that generates a SR marker doesn't look right to me. In the future, being able to separate CRs from SRs may be a useful function, but if the remaining articles are retagged, we lose that capability without working to re-separate the two. Imzadi 1979 → 20:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Promotion of task forces

A Question

What exactly is the difference between a subproject and a task force? I am failing to see any other than where the page is located and what it is called. --Holderca1 16:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A subproject is a state highway WikiProject that is relatively independent from USRD aside from the national guidelines (INNA, ELG, etc.). A task force is a former state highway WikiProject that has been usurped by USRD for maintenance purposes. By nature, USRD has a greater say in these task forces than it does in the subprojects. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That may have been true at one point, but the two are on a collision course for each other. For example, if Texas was changed into a task force, what exactly would be changed? With every new guideline that comes out, each project is getting less and less different. All articles are expected to have the same structure, infobox, browse, exit list, etc... I don't see where there is any room for independence or difference from the other projects. Why not just change them all to task forces? --Holderca1 20:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Kentucky

The following is an archived roads request for subproject promotion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the request for subproject promotion was promoted. (→zel zany - new age roads) 21:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The issues that led Kentucky to be demoted to a task force have been resolved. More active editors have been found, the infobox situation has been rectified and the project page has been fully fleshed out. That said, I believe that the project is ready to be repromoted to a subproject. Thoughts? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hats off to you, TMF, for your dedication on cleaning up the Kentucky project. However, after a quick glance through the 'related changes' from the Kentucky routes list, I don't see anyone else working on the project (aside from one edit by User:Realkyhick. Is it still basically a one-man show, or am I just missing some people? —Scott5114 ↗ 07:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Realkyhick has made more than one edit, that I am sure of, as he created articles for KY 90 and KY 70 in recent days. Seicer and Dale Arnett also provide the occasional edit. The "recent changes" for the KY state highway page is misleading as that page contains only the primary routes and not the entire system. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I figured I was missing something. Very well. Support the promotion of KYSH to full project status. —Scott5114 ↗ 18:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Support I never supported it being demoted in the first place. --Holderca1 19:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Support as long as there are editors to carry the project - do it master son^{T - C} 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Support per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads request for subproject promotion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Utah

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Withdrawn. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've redone the project page, the articles are in a somewhat better state, and there is an active editor. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I know the editor that you speak of but he hasn't responded to the query on the talk page. I'd like to see him post somewhere so that I can judge his commitment to the project. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose per below; one person doesn't make a WikiProject. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Just because there's an active editor doesn't mean it needs to be a standalone project. As it stands, most of USRD is in relative inactivity. Now is not the time to promote any more task forces to WikiProject. --Son (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I back up Son on his statement - and due to recent circumstances I really can't see any taskforce being promoted anymore.

Comment - It doesn't matter to me weather the sub-project is promoted or not. I see that as a technicality. To respond to TwinsMetsFan, what do you want me to post about? Davemeistermoab (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, I changed my opinion. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Support repromotion. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Utah (again)

The Utah State Highways Wikiproject has seen a rebirth over the last 4 or 5 months, having gone from one of the sub-projects in the worst shape, to one of the best. This is largely because there are now 2 or 3 regular editors, and 2 or 3 more occasional editors. Assuming these editors plan to stay with editing Utah roads articles (as opposed to moving on to other areas of interest), I think this project can be moved from the dead column, to the alive column.Dave (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Strong support.. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Support - Go ahead and discard this if I'm not eligible to discuss, but UTSH is seeing rapid growth and more editors. Also, I'm not planning on going to other areas anytime soon. I'm staying with UTSH till the end. CountyLemonade (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Support — best way to describe my opinion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Support I am an occassional contributor to Utah Roads articles and will help where I can. --Glennfcowan (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)