User talk:DeFaultRyan: Difference between revisions

Hello, DeFaultRyan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Pomingalarna (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Found some cool ideas for travel log -ish information on the user page for User:Qqqqqq. DeFaultRyan (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating this, but please add some text. Articles on other routes (in Ohio) have been deleted under CSD A1 (no context) for having only an infobox. Thank you. --NE2 05:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. I was in the middle of it, and was about to add the text, when I got interrupted and suddenly had to go. I figured that I might as well leave the infobox and references that I'd created, and come back to it later. I'll try and get it finished off today. DeFaultRyan (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Utah State Highways#Facility routes; thank you. --NE2 11:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the fix on the termini. I was looking at the map funny, it was soo zoomed in I lost my since of direction. Thanks! --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. I'm in the area at least every week, and it just sounded a little funny to me. Funny that the official Weber county declaration for the parkway goofed up and mixed up the termini themselves. DeFaultRyan (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ryan (if I can call you that). Just a tip when creating new articles on Utah state routes, if that's alright. First, when linking over cities, you don't have to say Salt Lake City, Utah. Instead, pipe the link so it reads Salt Lake City. One easy way to do this is the pipe trick. For example, entering [[Salt Lake City, Utah|]] will read Salt Lake City.

Also, the junction list shouldn't have a reference in the header (like on SR-108). It's some sort of Manual of Style violation. Instead, make sure the links are in the box itself, like on (SR-45). Above all, take this advice lightly, I'm just giving you what pretty much every article does in terms of style. Regards, CL — 19:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I had been putting the reference in the header because it didn't see how to put the reference in the top of the table using {{Jcttop}}. Maybe we could get a couple of parameters added to it... DeFaultRyan (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to deal with templates, unfortunately. But you can put the refs in the box by copying and pasting the code from a box that contains a ref (like the one in SR-45) and modifying the refs as needed. CL — 18:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just noticed that the {{Jcttop}} template has a length_ref parameter that will put a reference in the length column, which is just what I wanted (I updated Utah State Route 108 to use it - pretty slick). Perhaps, based off of that, we could get another reference parameter added to deal with referencing the location column. DeFaultRyan (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had no idea. I know someone in USRD created the jct template, if we could have them do that that would be great. You learn something new every day . . . CL — 20:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added the parameter. It's called location_ref, and I used it on Utah State Route 42.

		The Utah State Highways Barnstar
		For expanding SR-121 before I ever could get to it, I award you this highly prestigious barnstar. Oh, and not to mention all those other articles you've created. Cheers - CL — 19:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. See, when you put name1, it appeared as US 40 (Easy Street) / US 191 ... But the street name applies to both highways, so name2 appears US 40 / US 191 (Easy Street) ... Hope that helps. CL — 21:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't even notice that little detail. Thanks, I'll keep it in mind. DeFaultRyan (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks for your edits, you're a part of the project's resurgence in the past couple of months (we've only got 9 stubs now!). On SR-276, you can put the location name as Trachyte Junction in the major junction list and the infobox (I'll go ahead and fix it). It redirects to List of named highway junctions in Utah. CL — 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	I am awarding you this barnstar for your tireless editing that has made so many pages better—particularly pages within the WikiProject College football. You've shown excellent attention to detail and worked in good faith to rank many articles. Ute in DC (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you removed the category, but US-89 did in fact use SR-38 (and part of SR-30) from 1938 until the mid-1950s (it's on [1] but not on a 1956 map). I intend to expand the history of that article (and SR-106) at some point. --NE2 16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my bad. I was looking for it, and couldn't find any reference to US-89 anywhere, so I thought it must be in error. Sorry. DeFaultRyan (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for creating those articles on the minor state routes, I never got around to it and I lost interest in it, so I decided to be rather lazy and make a note of it on the to-do list. Anyway, in the termini in the infobox in SR-78, you can go ahead and put I-15 in there (besides, it's some sort of "violation" of the Manual of Style to but text before the shield) because the connection to the railroad is more of a technicality than anything (the legal definition even says "From Route 15..."), but that technicality should still be listed in the major junctions list, as you've already done. Hope this helps - CL — 05:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Nother thing, SR-76 ends at I-70 (even the road itself, it doesn't continue past then), and UDOT lists the interchange beginning at 0.000 (at least I think so), so in this case I don't think the cattle guard is worth mentioning. Feel free to disagree by the way, we're all new here and I'm guessing most of what I'm saying isn't a rigid form of consensus. Happy editing. CL — 05:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. The only reason I listed it the way I did, is that the road doesn't actually make it all the way to the I-70 interchange. It ends at the cattle guard just short of it on the south side. The junction itself isn't listed on the highway reference. If you check out Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=38.756786,-111.424853&spn=0.003196,0.00751&t=h&z=17), you can even see where the cattle guard is, just short of the eastbound on and off ramps. The Google Maps data is wrong, in that SR-76 doesn't continue north to cross under the freeway - it ends at that little dark strip (the cattle guard) south of the ramps. Technically, the route doesn't hit I-70, which explains my choice of wording. However, for all intents and purposes, it basically connects to the I-70 interchange, which fits your change. I'm OK either way, because I don't know how much of an anal-retentive approach to details we take here... DeFaultRyan (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you show just how new I still am to Wikipedia (or at least the whole roads thing). I didn't realize that SR-76 ends just short of the on-ramps...however, we might as well keep the western terminus at I-70, as it makes no sense that UDOT doesn't maintain the remainder of that road (it ends right at the westbound ramps). That's just my opinion though - CL — 21:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The frontage road that SR-76 is part of was removed from the state highway system when I-70 was completed. It was readded a few years later, but the part within I-70's right-of-way was already a state highway, so UDOT didn't bother transferring it to SR-76. (This is original research, but almost certainly correct.) --NE2 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ryan, I'm notifying everyone at UTSH of the fact that I've modified the road infobox to link over to List of numbered highways in Utah. Is everything okay with the change? CL — 06:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the main link (State highways in Utah) always points to state routes, even when the infobox is looking at a US highway or interstate in Utah. For example, US-6 in Utah - the infobox still links back to State highways in Utah. Is there a way to dynamically change that to link to the correct category? (Also posted to the template's talk page) DeFaultRyan (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NE2 made that final infobox change. He left the link to "State highways in Utah" (notice it doesn't link to "List of state highways in Utah) because one day, there might be an article on it such as the one for Washington detailing the history and what-have-you of the state route system. CL — 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That column of the table has not been updated in quite some time, primarily because the USRD participants page is a total mess (halfway through a transition to a new style). Also, it's not a particularly useful piece of information, since it doesn't do you much good to know how many editors there are if you don't know who they are to contact them, plus there's no accounting for how active an editor might be. I hope that answers your question, and I apologize for any confusion. -- Kéiryn (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review/Adams Avenue Parkway if possible. Thanks! --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 07:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, It has been 6 days since you did your initial review, and I understand that it takes time, but I'm getting antsy. I have seen some up there for a month though, so I guess I should be less antsy about it :p --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to get a second opinion on the route description (or figure out how to fix it myself), but I'm a little curious how you came up with 6 days, unless you meant 3 and it was a typo. It will be resolved early this week, one way or the other. DeFaultRyan (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, I was going off the original date listed on the GAC template; not the date you added it. Sorry! --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 00:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A second opinion has been posted by someone on the GA page. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for B-class for at least SR-93, the route is so short you can see from one end to the other; I'm shamelessly fishing for higher assessments because we and MSHP are in a bit of a challenge to see where we can get to in the standings. However, you have your reasons for assessing so if you want to keep it at C that's okay too :) CL — 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's borderline. I think a map would kick it up to B, or failing that, a good picture. I wouldn't worry too much about the race. We just picked up another FA and a GA, we reclassified Logan Canyon Scenic Byway and Nebo Loop Scenic Byway as 'Redirect-class', so they no longer count as stubs, and a whole slew of starts have gone to C. Right now, it's not terribly close - we're ahead 3.846 to 3.884 (MI would need to make up 9 work units to catch up). DeFaultRyan (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, hurrah! In all seriousness, I just want to see myself contribute to at least some B-class articles rather than just do C-class, but I understand your reasoning and I'll request a map and see what else I can do. You need to teach me how to figure out the numbers of the projects so I don't have to wait for Keiryn to update the list :) CL — 02:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the list, I just updated the whole table. By the way, the calculations are pretty simple. You take 0 points for FA, 1 point for A, 2 for GA, and so on down to 6 points for a stub, and total them for the ω value. Divide that by the number of articles you just counted to get the Ω value. Note that List, Cat, FL, and other article classes don't enter into the calculation - just FA, A, GA, B, C, Start, Stub. DeFaultRyan (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already saw the list; it feels good to see us on the top of the list finally (I thought the day would never come); thanks for the tip on how to calculate everything and here's to UTSH - CL — 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it's still a fairly slim lead. If Michigan bumped 9 articles up a step each, they'd catch us. I bet with this new list, they'll push even harder. It'll be a challenge to stay ahead and fill out our completion list at the same time. I'm thinking about downloading some sort of GIS software so that I can create maps. I might also take some photos. Maybe that will help us move some of those C's to B's. DeFaultRyan (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, any new C-class articles we create will bump down our stats, right? CL — 20:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, yes, but not enough to worry about. At the moment, each C-class article we add will raise our score by about 0.001, or approximately 1/40th the gap between UT and MI. Adding starts and stubs will hurt a little more (0.007 and 0.013 each, respectively), but as long as we can get them up to at least C quickly, we'll be fine, especially as we continue to promote our C's to B's. DeFaultRyan (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me putting this here instead of a new section header. Anyway, while Google Maps and some signs refer to 104th/106th S. as So Jo Parkway, should we? Most other signs call them by their numerical names and I'm assuming people in the area do too. I won't revert it because I want to see what you think on the manner (this is the second time "South Jordan Parkway" has come up on the article) - CL — 23:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of feels like a gray area, as far as deciding between 104th/106th and the parkway. If I recall, the parkway designation is relatively recent, so it may still be making its way into widespread common usage. I've also noticed quite a few business and office listings having their street address on "South Jordan Parkway". It seems that businesses and government entities are using that designation more and more. DeFaultRyan (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a compromise, "sometimes known as South Jordan Parkway" - CL — 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. :) DeFaultRyan (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SR-93 has obtained a map. What say you? CL — 04:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it up to B. Interestingly though, the map shows that the west half of the route is in North Salt Lake, but the article says it's completely within Woods Cross. Perhaps you should check the data and make sure the Woods Cross statement is correct. DeFaultRyan (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that too. I'll check it out when I have time. CL — 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, could you figure out the Ω and ω for USRD as a whole? I tried but I'm pretty sure my result wasn't correct. CL — 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I've got, based on the main assessment page, post NY-removal: FA=13, A=11, GA=73, B=808, C=373, Start=2507, Stub=6115. This gives totals of 9900 articles, ω=53298, and Ω=5.384. Also updated the main state stats page.

Thanks :) CL — 23:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do the update. I'd been planning on doing it right around the time you did, but I didn't have a good solid block of time to devote to it. I should be able to do another update Friday night / Saturday morning. -- Kéiryn (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've grsnted your request. Please remember to use the tool only for clear vandalism. Please see WP:RBK for more or feel free to ask me! Pedro :  Chat  15:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One quick question - Category:Start-class articles was vandalized yesterday by 2 or 3 different IP addresses in succession. Would the rollback feature have allowed me to rollback all three edits by different users to the last known good revision? DeFaultRyan (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Rollback reverts all edits by the last editor. So, for an example, if an IP made one good edit and then the same IP made a bad edit rollback would revert all edits. If an IP made a bad edit and then another editor made a good edit rollback would be no use as you can only rollback the last edit. In addition rollback only reverts on the page you're viewing - e.g. if an IP vandalises three articles each has to be rolled back sperately. Hope that helps. Pedro :  Chat  16:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used Google Maps Street View. Surprisingly they have coverage up there. However when there isn't Street View I usually just guess what the control cities are using common sense, so an interchange in Beaver will have the cities of St. George and Salt Lake. CL — 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... You are a bigger Wikipediest than I, more than anyone I've ever met. Yes, I started the article on the SLSW. I hope you wouldn't mind contributing to it: There's always more to do.

It's so good to hear from you via Wikipedia. Take care, and we'll see you later.

--AdjustablePliers (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had mentioned that you get to the area of Adams Avenue Parkway about once a week if I recall, could you possibly snap Adams Avenue Parkway as well as Utah State Route 103 near HAFB? Thanks! --Admrboltz (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can give it a try. I don't ever actually get on the parkway, I'm just often in the area (by Hill AFB). Perhaps a picture of the south end will do for now? DeFaultRyan (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me :) --Admrboltz (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help in reorganizing List of Utah State Routes. That took a long time, and I was getting frustrated. What a surprise to see you had finished the work.Dave (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind updating the leaderboard at WP:USRD/A/S? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's something about non-free images only being available for use on the page the picture directly concerns, so we can't use the image as a thumbnail. CL — 05:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DeFaultRyan. There is a new contest for U.S. and Canada roads that you may be interested in. To sign up or for more information, please visit User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup. The contest begins Saturday at 00:00 UTC. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost done with creating a program to generate the leaderboard automatically, so I can update it from now on. Thanks for doing it the last few months, however. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply... I am sorry that you received that message..It was not for you and I didn't realize I had posted it on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SparksBoy (talk • contribs) 17:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up in case you haven't been following Template talk:WPBannerMeta... We have parameters we can use for the custom class template now. You can see the version I'm using at {{WikiProject IRC/class}}. Now I just need to create a /doc subpage. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DeFaultRyan. You have new messages at Plastikspork's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Plastikspork (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you rated this article C class. Since that means you think it "is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material ... [and] may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup," I was hoping you could let me know what those are. I was considering putting this and the 1950 article through GAC some point, and didn't think they needed much work, so I'd like to hear your input. Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I was just giving it a quick once-over, and I'm hesitant to give it a B unless I look a bit more closely, seeing as how there is an actual 6-item checklist for B-class now. I'll flag it for reassessment and take another look, but I think my original impression was that there were no images, visual aids, etc at all, which I usually like to see in a B-class article. DeFaultRyan 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I wasn't disputing your assessment, I just wanted to get feedback for improvements if you had any in mind. I see you are now doing that. Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left it at C-class for now. I flagged a couple of dubious statements and left comments on the talk page. Feel free to flag it for reassessment after you fix the statements and look into the images. Images aren't required, but it's possible that the ones I mentioned in the comments are usable, so it's worth checking out. DeFaultRyan 20:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You = navbox beast! Great work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! All of the above, really. I saw your work on an article I have watchlisted, then followed it to your contributions. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I didn't realize there was a process for requesting help from existing bots; that really simplifies things. I'll put together a list of categories. Strikehold (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not too busy making navboxes, could you take a look at 2009 Orange Bowl and let me know if there's any big problems that should be fixed before I submit it to FAC? I only need to get one more featured article to complete the Virginia Tech bowl games featured topic, and anything you'd be able to add would be extremely helpful. If you don't have the time to help, could you recommend an editor who does? Thanks!