User talk:Polaron

Old messages here

---

WP:NYSR notification

Your imput is needed into a weekly collaboration for articles under the jurisdiction of WP:NYSR. Comments are at WT:NYSR. Regards.^Mitch32^contribs 02:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Maps

Do you happen to have a map of California from about 1930? Thank you. --NE2 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the maps I have are all for the eastern US (east of the Mississippi River). There is a map of transcontinental routes that includes California but not very much detail. --Polaron | Talk 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it have enough detail to show whether US 99 still takes the dogleg through Visalia that it did in 1928? --NE2 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say that yes it still does (both in 1930 and 1931). The cities that are marked are Bakersfield then Stockton, but there is an obvious "bump" just north of Bakersfield where the route swings northeast a bit then heads back on its northwest course. --Polaron | Talk 23:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I'll see what else I can find. --NE2 23:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Route 22 description

Yes, I'll do what I can (not now, I have to go out). My personal experience with the road is limited to the area between northern Westchester and Rensselaer counties, but I have a similar paucity of experience with US 9 north of Albany and I didn't let that stop me there. It definitely needs to be rewritten with a feel for the area.

As it happens, I'm heading for Danbury Fair Mall with my son, which would bring me across the highway in the Brewster-Pawling area, so maybe I could take a few pictures (although I hate taking any sort of outdoor landscapes at this time of year since the colors are not there. But at least I can scout for areas that would look good in warm weather). Daniel Case 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I am now done with all the improvements I saw that could be made. I have also looked around and found, to my delight, that we now have a U.S. Route 20 in New York article. It's good that we finally have one on what is only our longest numbered highway; however, it has the same problem with its route description.

Likewise, we also have U.S. Route 1 in New York and U.S. Route 202 in New York, relatively short routes that need to have real descriptions written (and are relatively short, and in the case of 202 have pictures I can use). So I will be doing a little more work for the project in the coming weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Date reversal

I'm sure you have a good reason to reverse dates, as you did in Jay, Vermont in the infobox. This is not standard American and will puzzle most of us the first time we see it. Does it have to be that way? Student7 23:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think there's an absolute rule so feel free to reformat the date. That is the international standard though but go ahead and change it to what you think is better. --Polaron | Talk 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't do any more reverts on Ivory Coast

Even though it's a content dispute, don't revert Robscure, because you are currently breaching 3RR, which is a 24h block. Miranda 00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an undiscussed copy-paste move of a controversial issue. This is not a content dispute. Robscure is trying to bypass WP:RM. --Polaron | Talk 00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dixwell (New Haven)

Thanks for the heads-up. I added a little bit more information, including a template or two. Do you have anything else to add? I'll try to look up the history of the neighborhood as well. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair Haven, Vermont

Just wanted to make a request: if you move articles such as Fair Haven (town), Vermont, would you be willing to update the county template? If you don't, as WP:R2D notes, it can make the template confusing. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with the redirect? Did it stop working? There is no need to fix redirects if they get you to the right place per WP:REDIRECT#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. --Polaron | Talk 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, templates like that are the one place where you should "fix" them, so it remains bolded on the article. --NE2 01:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I-90

If I remember correctly, you have New York Times access. Does [1] have anything useful about I-90? --NE2 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A few more that might have details, especially with respect to I-90 east of I-787: [2][3] --NE2 06:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[4] also looks useful. --NE2 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Does the first one mention whether the I-90 equivalent (Route 504) goes through Albany? Does the last one mention an existing plan to build I-90 east into Massachusetts? If it would be easier to email the articles to me (neroute2 at gmail), that would be useful; thank you. --NE2 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the first article does not give any route numbers (even legislative) at all, and the last one doesn't mention Massachusetts. Anyway, I'll email all four articles to you in a few minutes. --Polaron | Talk 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You were right that there's not much in them, though the fourth one certainly is useful. The details I'm trying to figure out relate to I-90 east of I-787. On Talk:Interstate 90 in New York I've taken some notes; particularly useful are the 1955 and 1959 maps. You don't happen to have access to old state laws, do you? If so, the descriptions of Interstate Route 504 and Interstate Route Connection 541 over the years would probably shed some light. --NE2 17:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Law School library here has the "New York State Legislative Annual" but I don't know if it's detailed enough for our purposes. Also, I would probably need to dedicate some time searching so that may have to wait a few days. --Polaron | Talk 17:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the specific law setting out the system is 1955 chapter 748, if that helps. --NE2 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Does [5] or [6] have anything about I-90 opening? --NE2 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's probably an error, since the Berkshire Thruway opened in 1959. --NE2 02:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. There's nothing in the two articles contradicting that the Berkshire Thruway has been in existence since 1959. --Polaron | Talk 02:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind; I thought it said that one was under construction. It was probably functionally but not officially I-90, as I-687 needed somewhere to end, and as far as I know there were no other auxiliary routes in the area. --NE2 02:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Norwalk motto

Doesn't the seal of the city of Norwalk have "E Pluribus Unum" right on it as the motto? The 'right time, and place' sounds like a chamber of commerce publicity creation. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 17

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 04:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

East River Drive

Where in the interchange does the name change? The Willis Avenue Bridge exit is south of the Triborough Bridge overpass. --NE2 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked GIS data and the particular data set that I have access to seems to indicate that the name changes at southbound Exit 17 and northbound Exit 19. So, you are correct. I've always thought until now that the northbound exit was the boundary. I will undo my changes. --Polaron | Talk 23:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

NY 22 barnstar

		The Article Improvement Drive Barnstar: New York State Route 22
		Your contributions to New York State Route 22's history, has helped get the article to GA status. I thank you and WP:NYSR thanks you.Mitch32contribs 14:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Pomfret Connecticut

Rogers Connecticut is a neighborhood in Killingly. You misspelled "Elliotts." I wouldn't call them communities. They are more historical hamlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacasso32 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

US 1 in NY — thanks!

I was pleasantly surprised to get the computer back from my son and see that you had taken care of the intersection list after I did the route description. An unexpected minor Christmas gift! Thank you! Saved me some work and I can go on to other articles after I rewrite the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing RPG notability/AfD situation

Hi, Polaron. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind reading my take on this situation around here of late, with all the AfD stuff going on in the RPG sector. My user page article is here. Thanks in advance. Compsword01 (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Polaron, sorry for mixing different sources for the life expectancy article. I've just realised that you are right about the CIA list being a "bit off" for the developing countries, and it is "off".

Thanks

Muzammil01 (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Southbury

Polaron: I don't really care what order the Southbury article entries are in, but could you please post your rationale for moving them around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drhamad (talk • contribs) 20:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No rationale. it's just my preference. Feel free to revert it if for some reason you don't like the order. In any case, there is sort of a guideline at article structure at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline, although many city articles do not follow this to the letter in practice. --Polaron | Talk 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's fine, I was just looking to see if there was any logic - after writing the majority of that page, I was a bit confused when I logged in today. Thanks. Drhamad (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Very Upset

I am unsure if you live in Bristol, but I know I do. I repeatedly worked very hard to modify the Bristol, Connecticut page. Among my additions were:

Additional Little League information - I volunteer well over one-hundred hours at the A. Bartlett Giamatti Leadership Training Center every summer, and I found there to be inadequate information so I added what should really be seen be people trying to learn all about Bristol.

New Bristol Fire Department information - I recently did a project all summer long to get information about our great Fire Department onto the web. I did many interviews with city firemen and they said they would be checking by all the sites they know to see the outcome of my project. I also added a link to my very informative, very "encyclopedia-like" Wikipedia page.

New External Link about Bristol's Very Own Weather Forecast - I also added to the external links section. The link I added goes to my very own weather site that I work hard on. No, it is not any random or copied forecast, as I spend hours building my always-precise forecast and I thought it would be great for Bristol's citizens to check out. I even made sure I wasn't breaking any "rules," so I checked the Wikipedia reference page, "External Links"

"Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail..."

As you can see, none of this info is on the Bristol, Connecticut Wikipedia page. Every time I re-add it, you remove it. I am deeply upset over all the hard work I put into the page and it just "somehow" gets quickly removed. I would like this to stop before I take a step further. 71.234.87.109 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

           Sure I'll fix the photo with the red border. Thanks for the fixes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.87.109 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 

Urban areas

This template is not talking about MSA's. It's talking about urban areas. See the talk page on the template for further discussion. MojaveNC (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Newsletter, Issue 1

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —^Mitch32^contribs 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Farmington revert

Hi there. Just a quick note about your recent revert on Farmington, Connecticut I almost reverted it myself, but I did a quick check & it seemed that the edit might have been constructive. TRUMPF, it seems from what I can find, might be notable enough to include in the article. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Generally, if edits like that do not link to a wiki article and are made by what appears to be a single-purpose account, I generally revert. Feel free to undo my changes since it does appear this might have some potential. Thanks for pointing this out. --Polaron | Talk 01:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Life expectancy UN List

Hey Polaron, I saw ur note regarding the reverting of my changes. I can find the overall data "both sexes combined" in the WPP 2006 revision but not separate male & female data. The source of that separate data is not mentioned anywhere, though it should be. Could u send me the hyperlink - or even better include it in the article? Thank u in advance! Panos84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panos84 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Metropoltan areas

Hey polaron i can see that you have deleted paris and Rhine-Ruhr, why? whit more than 11,500,000 citizens they both are large enough to be on the list and there is links to confirm it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highlife1234 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Population

Hello, could you explain this edit and summary please? Kind regards.--Vikimach (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is a list of cities by population. That article you referenced refers to the population of the il (province). Look at the current reference for Istanbul which links to an Excel file of the breakdown of population in each province. --Polaron | Talk 23:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

But http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=94338 said "According to the census, 17.8 percent of the population, amounting to 12,573,836, lives in Turkey's most populous city Istanbul." not about province.--Vikimach (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at the Excel file I was referring to? --Polaron | Talk 13:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Massachusetts templates

Please don't add communities such as Florence and Bradford to the county templates; they are not meant to include neighborhoods of cities. Nyttend (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no practical difference between what you call neighborhoods and what you don't. Everything that's not a town is a neighborhood. Are you saying these templates do not inormally include unincorporated communities? 13:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand, cities and towns are different. I'm well aware that both are incorporated, and that towns are not at all civil townships. However, the town is a minor civil division, and the city is not — that's why there can be CDPs in the towns but not in the cities. It's standard practise to place a template on and link from the template to an article on a non-CDP community that's within the town, such as East Freetown. On the other hand, it's against the way things are to do the same with any community within a city, such as South Attleboro. It's a very simple division, and it's a division that's followed in states regardless of the power of their minor civil divisions. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cities are minor civil divisions in New England - have you looked at the Census Bureau list of MCDs? Under state law there is no difference between a city and a town. In Massachusetts, the distinction is made only because of arcane election laws about the necessity of holding town meetings. I would have thought you were aware by now of the incorrect treatment of New England towns by the Census Bureau but to reiterate -- there is no functional difference between a city and town. Templates for states with the same situation (New Jersey and Connecticut) include them. Why single out Massachusetts? --Polaron | Talk 13:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here -- but the topic caught my attention. First, I agree with Polaron about the templates -- it is silly to slavishly base distinctions on Census Bureau criteria and terminology. If a place name is well-known as a distinct place within a county, then why shouldn't it be mentioned on the template? But second, and more of a nit-picking detail about Census arcana, cities in New England are not considered to be Minor Civil Divisions, while towns are. However, statistics for cities are reported as a County Subdivision (that is, incorporated places are treated as MCD-equivalents). There can be CDPs within towns but not within cities. Although, since towns can change to city status with relative ease, there may be some CDPs designated in what had been towns at the time of the census but are not any longer. Confusing, but that is Census terminology, such as it is. older ≠ wiser 15:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes you're right about that technicality. It appears that cities are classified as "False MCDs" or "independent places". My thinking was sort of stuck in the situation in Connecticut where consolidated cities are actually MCDs. My philosophy is generally not to use the Census Bureau as the end-all for which named communities are important. I would even strike out the distinction between CDPs and villages in the templates except that some CDPs are merely urbanized portions of a town and not really villages in the usual sense. --Polaron | Talk 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally, part of the reason this caught my eye is that I was updating the Michigan county navigation boxes to remove the CDP label and list all the unincorporated communities in one group. Discussion started on my talk page User talk:Bkonrad#CDPs in Michigan and I've asked for other opinions here. Thought you might be interested. older ≠ wiser 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Southington, Connecticut

Hi Polaron, thanks for reverting vandalism on Southington, Connecticut. You may wish to take note of the two sockpuppets that subsequently sprang up in the article's history.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nantucket County template

Is your only objection to the Nantucket County template the fact that it just has two listings? I'm going to be creating more community articles to add to it; if you don't have any other objections to the template, your objections will be satisfied. Nyttend (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'd appreciate it if you would alert me when you nominate for deletion templates and categories I create. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, similar templates have been deleted for serving only to provide a single link. There are conceivably about 3 or 4 villages in the town but you should try and find out if those are still in common use. 130.132.94.101 (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing now to withdraw the nomination for Nantucket County? It's now much larger than it was when you nominated it. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Missouri towns

I will withdraw my comments. I cannot say whether the category should be kept or deleted as I have no independent facts at my disposal Hmains (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected the category as a CSD:G7 situation; as long as you work with these communities, please leave the demographics as they are. These villages and cities were apparently towns in 2000, and as such, their demographics are those of towns — and they should be left as much as the demographics of communities such as Milton are. Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a minute: please let me do the category work, as I'd like to add a note to the "towns" without both of us needing to work on them. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops I think I got them all already. I can make any additional changes that you want if it's a fairly repetitive kind of thing. --Polaron | Talk 00:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut county templates

As I've noted above with Vermont: it's not good for county templates to link to redirects, so it would be helpful if you modified the links to the actual targets. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK!

On 4 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Connecticut Route 136, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

USA and China region conflict

Hi,

  It was 3 years ago when USA was ranked no 3 on the page "List of Countries by Area" that I had put both China and USA at the disputed position of 3,4. Now having understood my mistake, i state that the Chinese 6.5% area is incorrect as it includes disputed territories not recognized by UN or anyone else. Second, the USA's 6.7 % area is the official UN figure excluding other US territories except Alaska and Hawaii. This anomaly clearly puts USA as the the no 3 biggest country in the world, without a doubt.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.72.56 (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 03:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I-95

Can you direct me where you found that the PA extension of the NJ turnpike is I-95? I know it will be when I-95 is finally connected. Not disputing you, just interested to read up on it. Thanks! -Airtuna08 (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Gotta find an updated I-95 mileage source.-Airtuna08 (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to the CDPs

I'm trying to get consensus for a standard format for county navboxes, especially related to CDPs, but only four people have participated in the discussion. You participated in the earlier discussion; would you please join the second one so that we can have a broader consensus? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

List of countries and outlying territories by total area

Hi.

Regarding our recent exchange of edits on List of countries and outlying territories by total area, I won't edit war over this, but we have a situation where an assertion is contradicted by the source cited to support it, the contradiction resulting from (you report privately) the source having an error. That cited supporting source really does need to be replaced with or supplemented by some other reliable sources which either (a) point out the error or (b) do support the assertion which they are cited to support. Also, see the discussion at WT:V#Verifiable sources having known but unverifiable errors, which bears on this. Cheers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

NY 22

Great article! I'm gonna be in Plattsburgh this weekend, so i'm gonna try and grab a few pictures for the page. -Airtuna08 (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a few pictures would greatly benefit the article. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by population

Hi there. I thought you were in charge of keeping order at List of countries by population, but I see the anonymous IP from Norway has once again changed the figures for France and Germany (removing the French overseas departments and territories from the French figure, and putting an older figure for Germany), and you've edited the article after him/her without reverting these changes as you used to do before (this anonymous IP from Norway has been around for quite a while, hasn't it?). I have reported the anonymous IP for violation of 3RR, but since the guy changes IP quite often (always starting with 80.2...), nothing can be done against him/her if we don't act all together. If we do nothing then next thing someone is going to remove Hawaii from the US figure, or the Canary Islands from the Spanish figure. How long is this cycle of vandalism going to last? We should try and find a solution. Godefroy (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Noone is technically "in charge" of the article. There were many legitimate edits that were added by another user that would take a lot of effort to fix. I might get to it when I have a larger chunk of spare time. --Polaron | Talk 02:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've just fixed things, but let's keep an eye on it. Godefroy (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your recent revert

of my edit on West Hartford, Connecticut - something must be added to the mayor's name (James Francis) for disambiguation, or it will redirect to some dead Australian bearing this name, which is certainly not the current mayor of West Hartford. Also, try to assume good faith. Thank you ! --ANONYMOUSPUSSY 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

United States Navy Seabees Bridge

Review requested, please. I know it needs better pictures, but this is what I've got at this time. I got there too late in the day. :-( That's why it's taken me so long to post 'em. But that darn Whittlesey book forced my hand. Yep, that's what it did. Who knows where it'll strike next?? - Denimadept (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations in the lead of an article

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Citations in the lead of an article  — master son^{T - C} 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Concurrency color coding and Termini in Junction Lists

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#Concurrency_color_coding_and_Termini_in_Junction_Lists  — master son^{T - C} 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —О бот (т • ц) 21:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Some potential 1930 NY routes

All of these existed in 1935, but based on their numbers (and the "clusters") it's possible that some of these came about in the renumbering. If you could give these a look when you get a chance, that'd be great - most are just a "yay" or "nay" if they existed in 1930. Also, if you could check to see if the routes changed by 1938, that'd be awesome as well. TIA.

• 160 - in 1935, it went from 5S near Amsterdam to its current terminus in Pattersonville via CR 165 and its current alignment north of Scotch Church
  • Not shown in either 1931 or 1938 Green Book maps but the number does suggest it is a 1930 route as there are numbers slightly above and below it in the area.
• 407 - portion of modern 160 south of Scotch Church
  • Not shown on Green Book maps
• 337 - portion of modern 12D between 26 and 12
  • Shown as above in 1938 map. Not numbered in 1931 map
• 12D - in 1935, it went along roughly modern 12 between Lowville and Boonville
  • In 1931, 12D began at the junction with 26 west of Lyons Falls using modern 12D Lyons Falls, then using a road slightly east of modern 12 but parallel to modern 12 to Lowville
  • In 1938, 12D is shown as modern 12D from Boonville to junction with 26, then modern 26 to Lowville (overlapped with 26)
• 248 - originally existed only north of 17
  • Shown as above in 1931
• 46A - modern 365 and 274
  • Shown as above in 1938. Not numbered in 1931.
• 11B - in 1935, it was routed on its current alignment to Nicholville, where it followed CR 55 to US 11. The Potsdam-Nicholville segment overlapped NY 72. The segment on CR 55 was definitely formed in 1930 (NYT map) but it's unclear if 11B extended west, and AFAIK, we never covered that in the NY 72 AID.
  • Not numbered in 1931 (only 72 is shown)
  • Modern alignment (Potsdam-Malone) in 1938
• 187 - modern 11B east of Nicholville
  • Not shown as 187 in either 1931 or 1938
• 229 - modern 34B east of South Lansing
  • Shown as above in 1938. Not numbered in 1931.
• 236 - this one is interesting. The 1935 map indicates it went from 17 in Cadosia and followed modern 268 north to at least Kerrys and possibly through Apex to NY 10. A 1948 topo of the area shows 236 on the entirety of modern 268 north of Cadosia. What did it look like in 1930, if it existed? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Shown as above in 1938 (Hancock/17 to north of Apex/10). Road not shown in 1931 map.

On a related note, we discussed NY 9F and 9G at some point in the channel. The 1935 map definitely supplements our conversation: by 1935, 9F was rerouted north of East Park to extend to east of Rhinebeck - looks like via modern 9G. However, in 1935, 9G "hugged" the riverbank all the way to Rhinebeck - looks like via River and Mount Rutsen Roads. Was the latter (9G's alignment into Rhinebeck) the case in 1931? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear but if I were to guess based on the shape of the road, I would have to agree with you. It looks like it merges with modern 9G in Annandale-on-Hudson. --Polaron | Talk 02:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rutland (city)

Thanks for fixing the image size problem. I don't know very well how that kind of infobox works, so I hadn't a clue how to fix it. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not your Wikipedia

This is not your Wikipedia. Respect that other Wikipedians have different opinion. LUCPOL (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making a contentious edit by inserting the EU within the table. The current state prior to your edits was the result of a long-standing compromise. Thanks for your understanding. --Polaron | Talk 14:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation "The current state prior to your edits was the result of a long-standing compromise" - what compromise? Please link (hyperlink) to compromise. LUCPOL (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's scattered over both Talk pages. There's even archive for it. If you prefer the situation before where there was a constant edit warring, be my guest. --Polaron | Talk 14:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

NY 394

[7] - since there's probably some Connecticut routes that have similar ties to history, I figured that you'd be interested in this discussion about merging a stub article on an early trail located in the corridor of NY 394 into NY 394. Feel free to comment. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Chester, CT

Please stop changing the name of the first selectman of Chester, CT to "Thomas March." His last name is spelled "Marsh." You can check that out here: http://www.chesterct.org/departments/firstselectman.htm Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entre5et7 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You could have linked to the above when you edited. You should also let the webmaster of the Secretary of the State know as he is listed as "March" there. --Polaron | Talk 01:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting on my page :-) I had antagonised this editor previously by reverting his/her proclamations that Kalida, Ohio had 23 people and 385 households (which had an average income of $5!), of which -3% had children under age 86 living with them. And I also reverted his/her proclamation that I'm a woman, for which I gave a uw-error3 (obviously an error for an Eagle Scout :-) Thanks again! Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Places in Connecticut

I see you often creating entries for villages in Connecticut, usually redirects to the towns. I've got a list here of villages with post offices but without either articles or redirects. Would you be willing to create one or the other for them? Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll create redirects for all of them until someone writes actual articles. --Polaron | Talk 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you do Rhode Island too? Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess so; thanks again! Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

List of islands by area

Polaron, you have removed the state/province flags from the above article explaining only that they are "not needed". I strongly disagree with this opinion and have stated my case on Talk:List_of_islands_by_area. I replaced the information - commented with "please see the talk page", yet you reverted the article without leaving a counter-argument. Please can you leave a suitable response so that we can take this dispute forward sensibly. I don't want to get into an edit war with you, but I fear we're heading down that road - let's work together to avoid that. Bazonka (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Lagos Population

On the worlds largest administrative divisions (municipalities/cities) you list Lagos definition as "administrative division" or something to that effect. I've already explained it but "Lagos" as we know it is not a single municipal area governed by a single municipal council. Apart from the local government areas that make up the conurbation the next highest level of government in Nigeria is the state level. There is no "Lagos" council or government except at state level. Below that you have the local municiaplities. The same goes for Santiago. Neither of these cities belong on the "cities" page, but they most definitely belong on the urban area and metropolitan pages. "Lagos" and "Santiago" are akin to "Sydney" and "Melbourne". Do you understand? --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know but those are the concepts used in most urban publications when talking about "administrative cities". Even the Lagos page uses that. These areas are smaller than the metro areas. --Polaron | Talk 12:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Lagos State and Santiago Province are not "local governments", though; they are not municipalities. They are first-level administrative divisions. While a place like London is also a region, it is also a municipality. Santiago Province is not a municipality. The only reason we should ever have provinces on here is if they are "special", which means they function as both a city and a state/province. Santiago Province is not a "special" province. London and Tokyo are. Sydney and Melbourne are not. Do you get what I'm saying, now? I'm trying to be as clear as possible. Hopefully, this finally clears things up. --Criticalthinker (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you are wrong about Tokyo. Tokyo Prefecture includes many additional cities not part of the traditional city proper. --Polaron | Talk 00:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please remove Santiago Province from the list? As I said above, it's not a special province in Chile, meaning it's not administered as a special city/municipality. It's in the same boat as the likes of Melbourne, Sydney, and Lagos who while they may be able to be listed in the metro and urban area lists, they don't belong on the administrative list. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

NYSR Newsletter - Volume 2, Issue 1

You received this message because you specified "NY" as one of your states of interest on the WP:USRD participant page. If you do not want to receive these in the future, please visit this page and remove your name. – TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Keihanshin

Not all moves need an administrator. The move is question is uncontroversial and can be done easily, as Keihanshin currently only redirects to Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto. See WP:RM: "If the move is uncontroversial and the move is technically possible, then please feel free to move the article yourself."

-- Exitmoose (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but you should not do a copy and paste move because you will lose the history of the page. NAnd now that you did, the proper way to move it is through admin action. --Polaron | Talk 02:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Cities

Pol, we're going to have to find someway to add back the Chinese cities to the world's largest cities page. They are most definitely specially-administered city-provinces and belong on the list. I advocate adding them with their municipal population, since that's what the page is for. But, if you disagree, perhaps we can add only the "inner" boroughs of each city. For instance Puxi, the inner 8 or so boroughs of Shanghai are loosely considered the "city proper" even though each is governed no different than the many other boroughs of the city. They aren't specially governed boroughs within the city, but we could pretend that they are if you really wanted to. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to use only the inner districts then go ahead. But then isn't that exactly the same situation with using just the 16 LGAs of Lagos? I thought you wanted areas where there is a well-defined government. As long as the criterion for inclusion in the list is applied universally, then go ahead and do what you think is appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 12:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, I will add the city as an entire municipality. The difference, though, between adding up the municipal governments that make up the conurbation of Lagos, and adding up the municipal government that make up the inner parts of Chinese cities are that the Chinese cities have an overriding government that is both a province and a city. Lagos' next tier of government is the state, and it's not specially administered as anything other than a state. Anyway, I will add the Chinese cities as municipalities and not their urban areas. --Criticalthinker (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I need help

There's a bit of a collision in the Talk:Ponte Vecchio page regarding an infobox I inserted. Could you please take a look and see what's reasonable? - Denimadept (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It'll be interesting to see how/if they respond. - Denimadept (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This has gone a little further at WP:WQA and since I mentioned you by name there in reference to the problem you helped with, I figured you should be aware of this. - Denimadept (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean?

"Purging commons", that is. Will that get the svg files to display properly? - Denimadept (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In principle yes. It's a known bug and purging the original file at Wikimedia Commons is the standard workaround (which works most of the time but not always). I've done so three times now but still no luck. --Polaron | Talk 20:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:PURGE for more information. --Polaron | Talk 20:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(after you reverted yourself) Yeah, it's a bitch. You think I wanted to do that? I tried it with 29px too, which also worked. I dunno which makes more sense. - Denimadept (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NY 130 question

Was NY 130 assigned by 1938? The reason I ask is that it was originally part of NY 35 (presumably as far back as 1927) and it was designated as NY 130 by 1947. TIA. – TMF 19:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, NY 130 is shown in the 1938 Buffalo inset. It extended as far west as Main Street (then NY 5). --Polaron | Talk 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a few more questions relating to the time period as well, namely for NY 179 (then located in St. Lawrence County Jefferson County), NY 180, and NY 326. All three were formed by 1935, but I was wondering if any of them were created in the 1930 renumbering. Also, at some point between 1935 and 1947, NY 179 was extended south through Dexter to NY 3 along what was numbered as NY 409 in 1935. Perhaps the 1938 map can narrow that time frame a little more. – TMF 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NY 180 and 326 are shown as unnumbered in the 1931 map. NY 179 is shown between Chaumont and Depauville in 1931. NY 179 is shown as far south as NY 3 in the 1938 map. --Polaron | Talk 20:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. One last request for the night: in 1935, at least part and possibly the length of modern NY 318 was designated NY 291 while a connector between NY 291 and Seneca Falls (modern CR 102) was NY 390. Another connector between NY 291 at Nichols Corners and Seneca Falls (modern CR 101) was designated NY 390A by 1947 and possibly by 1935. I don't know if any of these are long enough to show up on the Green Book maps though. My question is do the routes appear on the maps (either 1931 or 1938) and if they do, what is their alignments? – TMF 22:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In the 1931 map, modern 318 is shown as part of 89 from US 20 to 414 at Magee. The rest of it is unnumbered. Neither of the two connectors are even shown on the 1931 map. In the 1938 map, modern 318 west of Magee is now shown as 291 with the part east of Magee still shown as part of 89. The two connector routes are now shown but do not have any numbers. --Polaron | Talk 22:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I've incorporated the vast majority of these notes into their articles (the exceptions being 130 and 326 because I haven't gotten to either one yet). Here's three more routes out of the "existed in 1935 and may have in 1931 bin": 308, 353, and 7B. In 1935, 308 extended from NY 199 in Rock City to a ferry at Rhinecliff, 353 was assigned to modern Cattaraugus County Route 58 south of NY 39, and 7B was modern NY 357. Were any of these created in the renumbering? – TMF 05:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

While 308 is not marked on the main mapof the 1931 Green Book, it is indicated as such on one of the turn by turn guides from Kingston to Pittsfield MA, so it did exist in 1931. NY 7B is shown in the 1931 map from between NY 7 and NY 28. The road used by NY 353 was not shown in the 1931 map. --Polaron | Talk 17:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

NY 145

This is probably my last request for a while as after I get this article improved, my focus is going to be on more menial maintenance tasks (as listed on my to-do) across the state's recognized content. Based on the NYT map, the portion of modern NY 145 between Cooksburg and Middleburg was designated as part of NY 81 as part of the 1930 renumbering. In 1935, NY 145 is shown on its modern alignment from Cooksburg to at least Cairo (there are no markers on NY 23 between Cairo and Catskill). The reason I say "at least" is that in 1947, NY 23 and NY 145 are shown as overlapping one another all the way to Catskill. Also, by 1947, NY 145 was extended north over ex-81 and ex-NY 164 to its current northern terminus.

My questions:

1. Were NY 145 and NY 164 (the latter was Cobleskill-Sharon in 1935) assigned in 1930 (present in 1931)?
2. Did the Middleburg-Cobleskill segment of modern NY 145 (excluding the portion that overlaps NY 7) have a designation in either 1931 or 1938?
3. Were NY 145 or NY 81 altered between 1931 and 1938?
4. Do any of the Green Book maps/logs show/indicate an overlap between NY 23 and NY 145 between Cairo and Catskill?

Thanks in advance for this, and a big thanks for all of the information above. – TMF 06:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cobleskill-Sharon is shown in the 1931 map as 164. The Cooksburg-Cairo segment does not have any number on the map but I see 143 and 146 in the vicinity so my guess is it did exist even if the map doesn't show it. The Cooksburg-Middleburg section is shown as part of 81. The Middleburg-Cobleskill road is not shown in the 1931 map. In the 1938 map, that piece is shown as 433. NY 145 is now shown in the 1938 map from Middleburg to Cairo with NY 81 truncated to Cooksburg. I couldn't find any indication of an overlap between 23 and 145 in either the 1931 or 1938 books. --Polaron | Talk 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?

Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

New England Interstate Route pages

You completely misunderstand the titles of these pages- the New England Interstate Routes were actual routes from 1922-1926, NOT a definition of a group of routes that happen to all be called 8, 9, etc. Why is this so difficult to understand? Find it here:

http://www.roadgeek.org/nehwys/

If you continue to revert something that is plainly obvious by the title of the page itself, a historical ROUTE and not a combination of ROUTES, then I'll go to who I have to to resolve this. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

First, there was no formal "decommissioning" of these routes. These routes did not become defunct in 1926 and only got new highway shields when each state developed their own markers. They are still pretty much active. Second, several of the articles currently serve as the article for the current routes and it should be clear that these are active routes in the introduction in any case. --Polaron | Talk 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole purpose of the NEIRS was to standardize the roads, and when the US Highway system came into being, these roads were no longer interstate, hence the title no longer existed. Each state made its own distinction regarding roads, and the markers became obsolete. You cannot call any of the routes you list as interstate, but I do agree that referencing them is vitally important. However, they really don't have a place in the infobox, as the title reflects the old system, and each route has its own page by state anyways. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

00:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, for some of the current routes where there isn't much history e.g. Massachusetts Route 8 and Vermont Route 8, the New England route article is the article for them. --Polaron | Talk 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

New England Interstate Route 17

OK, maybe we do have room for compromise on the NEIRS, but in this article, I have legitimate proof of NE-17 and its route from the ALA 1923 Green Book, Hudson, NY to Pittsfield, MA via Great Barrington. It clearly states the route as follows:

NE-17:

• HUDSON. At south end of City Park, turn left.
• Turn right onto Columbia Ave.
• Bear left onto Green St., small park on right.
• Straight ahead; railroad crossing.
• Under railroad viaduct.
• Claverack. Straight ahead.
• Hollowville. Bear left.
• Craryville. Straight ahead.
• Hillsdale. Straight ahead.
• Macadam road ends at top of mountain.
• Slow. This is a "spill" bend.
• Bear left.
• Meet and follow trolley.
• South Egremont, Mass. Straight ahead, leaving trolley at left.

It states the exact route by using landmarks which definitivelky show it did go where I referenced it did. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 12:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that doesn't necessarily mean the whole route was marked 17. When New York signed its routes in 1924, the portion that was supposed to be New England 17 was designated as NY 23. It never was signed as 17. It becomes 17 at the MA-NY state line. --Polaron | Talk 13:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NY 82 and 1930s US Routes

While working on NY 82 today (my current task is replacing "decommissioned" with more descriptive language), I noticed a number of things on the 1935 RMcN map. One is that NY 82 continued straight through Pine Plains along Dutchess CR 83A, Silvernails Road, and Columbia CR 7 to Ancram, where it met its current alignment. At the time, modern 82 between Ancram and 199 east of Pine Plains was signed as part of NY 201, a route that went from Pine Plains to Copake Falls via NY 82 and Columbia CRs 7 and 7A. Another is that some of the 1930s US Routes have concurrent state highway designations, likely deriving from the 1930 renumbering. If you could confirm/deny these, as well as the situation with NY 82 above, against the 1930/31 Green Books, that'd be great - not only for the histories of these state routes, but also for the US Route state-detail articles (in the case of US 62, if/when it's made).

• US 62 - NY 60 (PA-Frewsburg), NY 83 (Frewsburg-Conewango Valley), NY 241 (Conewango-Dayton?), NY 18 (Dayton-Niagara Falls)
• US 219 - NY 18 (PA-Salamanca), NY 98 (Salamanca-Great Valley), NY 75 (Great Valley-Hamburg) - but I thought most of this was originally NY 62? I wonder if the 1930 NY 75 was renumbered to NY 430 and NY 62 was renumbered to NY 75 when US 62 entered New York.
• US 202 - NY 116 (Peekskill-Somers) - I know there was also an overlap with NY 100, but it's not shown here.

The rest of the routes are devoid of overlapping designations. US 15 (still shown as US 111 in PA and NY 2 in NY) has yet to enter NY. – TMF 22:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

US 62 - the NY 60 and NY 18 segment are marked as such on the 1931 map. 83 and 241 are not marked on the main map but one of the turn by turn guides (that happen to match US 62 except it passes through Jamestown) indicate both of these segments as you said. US 219 - the NY 75 portion is shown as NY 62 in the 1931 map. The other two segments are as you said. NY 62 was definitely renumbered (in 1932?) due to US 62. There may be some informtation in the NY 5 history. US 202 - not marked as 116 on the map (unnumbered) and could not find any instance in the turn by turn guides (there wasn't any route listed that directly connected Peekskill through Yorktown/Amawalk/Somers). NY 82 - the 1931 Green Book map shows 82 ending at 199 in Pine Plains. The Pine Plains-Copakes route is indeed shown as 201. --Polaron | Talk 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

List of United States urban areas

Are you trying to WP:OWN the article as it looks like you revert most changes to the article? As MOS:ABBR a style guideline that is part of the WP:MOS, and thus all articles are subject to it, clearly states: "Current and former postal codes and abbreviations – such as TX for Texas, Calif. for California, Yorks for Yorkshire – should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text." Thus every postal abbreviation should be removed. The primary reason, is we try for a global context, and it is unlikely someone in Norway will know what TX, AL, AZ, OR, or FL stand for. Additionally, as the guideline WP:R2D also covers, "In many cases where it might seem appropriate to make this change, such as those involving unprintworthy redirects, the better option is to edit the visible text rather than change where the link is pointing." thus a postal abbreviation is only for navigation and would not be a printworthy redirect and should be altered, as it was. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change all the names, go ahead, but don't replace only one name without doing the rest. However, you should note that the list uses the official urban area name as tabulated by the U.S. Census Bureau[8] so there is nothing at all unprintworthy about that. Furthermore, this is a list and is not "normal text". --Polaron | Talk 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Match the rest like the first 261 entries that do not link to the postal abbreviation code? Or the rest that do? Aboutmovies (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

edits

I am trying to seek a clarification of why my edits were reverted, 'Pop clocks' are not required to update the list, as far as I'm concerned. Indonesia's population is growing about 12k daily, is that not notable enough for you. I am probably going to add "auto updates" to every single country within the next couple weeks, with or without "pop clocks". Dwilso 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Population growth is not necessarily linear. Where are you getting your data from, i.e. what is your basis value, what are the fertility and mortality assumptions, etc. The UN World Population Prospects medium variant shows 7,434 per day for 2007-2008 (it changes every year). --Polaron | Talk 01:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been looking at the population in 1990, 2000, and 2008 and have calculated the average the growth, between these years. According to the "CIA" the pop clocks are way off beat. Dwilso 01:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the CIA estimates for the less developed countries are the ones that are off compared to the official estimates by the national census authorities. (CIA tends to overestimate and assume constant fertility). Plus, you can't assume growth is linear over that long a period as the growth is nonlinear. Over the short term (say within a year or so) you could do that. If you want to do forward projections, most countries publish projections either every year or every five years. You should use those figures as your basis if you want to automate. --Polaron | Talk 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by population

I don't understand why you are avoiding explanation about Kosovo. I don`t see any drag to liste it like other entities who are not recognised by UN. --Pockey (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Entries that are unranked have their figure included in some other entry (e.g. Reunion in France). Entries whose figures are not included in another entry (e.g. Puerto Rico is not included in the U.S. figure) are ranked. The Serbia figure as currently listed excludes Kosovo so the excluded entry should be ranked. Just add the Kosovo figure back in and renumber. I'll do it for you if you like. --Polaron | Talk 21:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, I don't realy understand fully what you mean, so could you do it... I just want to mark off teritories who are members of UN, and those who are not such as Kosovo. Kosovo must be treated as other unrecongnised countries. Regards, -Pockey (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

List of cities by population

Why, oh, why did you revert List of cities by population back to the earlier format? I'm really considering simply placing this page up for deletion, because I fail to see if we're just going to arbitrarily include some city propers and reject others, how it's any different from the list of the world's largest urban areas. I also don't get why we continue to exclude official census numbers and official estimates in favor of the World Gazetter. What happened to the belief that no one knows there citizens better than the country themselves? Outsourcing numbers to the Gazetter simply makes the numbers on the page less accurate and second-hand. Really, you've got to fix this thing, or it simply doesn't need to exist. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, another editor was insisting on putting the Chinese city proper definitions, which are mere statistical aggregations with no associated government. You should probably put it up for deletion since no two people can ever agree what the definition of a city is. --Polaron | Talk 01:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And, we're not excluding official estimates where recent ones are available. If you have recent estimates, by all means, please do cite them. --Polaron | Talk 01:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you take off my deletion tag after you said I could put it up for deletion? What is AFD? --Criticalthinker (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion is where you discuss whether or not articles should be deleted. PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions. The deletion of this list is likely going to generate a lot of discussion so AFD is the appropriate venue. --Polaron | Talk 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I followed the directions (a bit tricky), and this page is now up for a debate about deletion. Please add your opinion. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

NYSR discussion

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes#Ye Olde NY 35 (1927) - your input is appreciated. TIA. – TMF 03:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut Route 41

Can you please expand the Special Designations section instead of an one sentence paragraph. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

More route questions

Did the roadway along the east side of Keuka Lake (modern NY 54) have a designation in 1931? I know it became NY 54A by 1935, but that's the extent of what I know. Also, I'm wondering if the entirety of NY 12B was formed as part of the 1930 renumbering, and if it was, if there were any changes in its routing compared to today. The 1935 map is unclear regarding the alignments of NY 26, NY 46, and NY 12B in the vicinity of Bouckville. Also unclear is the pre-renumbering designations of NY 12B. Based on the 1926 map, it was mostly NY 12, but the NYT map appears to label it as NY 12A. Any help figuring all of this out is appreciated. – TMF 01:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Modern 54 is shown as 54A in 1931 but with the middle third portion marked as unimproved.

The 1931 map shows 12B pretty much where it is now (i.e. no difference in the places passed through). In the 1930 map, the exact same route is shown as 12A.

26 and 12B appear to be where they are now in the vicinity of Bouckville but I can't tell from the map if there were minor alignment changes. It also seems likely to me that the old routes used Valley Road and Canal Road between Oriskany Falls and Bouckville but I don't have anything to substantiate that. 46, however, is shown overlapping 26 until Augusta then went west along Knobxoro Road to Munnsville (there's a marker between Oriskany Falls and Augusta). There is a through route north from Bouckville via Pratts Hollow (most likely via Pratts Road) that is unmarked. I suspect this 46 in the 1931 map is an error based on the route log in the front of the Green Books. Before the renumbering, the route log shows 46 beginning in Oriskany Falls but in the 1931 book, the southern terminus is shown as Pecksport (just south of Bouckville). It looks to me that the 1931 map showed the pre-reumbering route of 46. --Polaron | Talk 22:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Total population at List of Countries by population

Why is "On 4 May 2008, if everything is accumilated, you get a total amount of "6,748,122,710" people over the world. This is inaccurate, as the figure has different dates of information" unneeded? It shows a better view of the total population. It's in increase by 100 thousand people, I don't think that's unneeded. If you really do think so, please tell me why Wob-Wob (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Delhi Inquiry

After we had the lengthy discussion concerning the population number you used for Delhi being only the actual municipal corporation of Delhi I see the 1,468 square kilometers for its area is the area for the entire Delhi union territoy. This is exactly the reason I nominated the page for deletion. It seems everyone loves the idea of the ranking, but there is so much wrong with it for it to be nearly completely untrustworthy. I see someone added Lagos back (and a number of other "cities). To get back on subject, I expect you to find the area for the actual Municipal Corporation of Delhi if you're going to keep that bogus number you have attached to it. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put the figure in and the MCD encompasses parts of all 9 districts so there is no easy way to get the figure you're looking for. In the meantime, I will remove the figure. --Polaron | Talk 14:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In the future, when I reply on your talk page, it'd be good if you reply on mine, or at least leave me a message that you've replied out of common courtesy. On the actual issue, though, I don't get how you got the new Delhi area number. Nothing should be excluded. All I was asking you to find was the area of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, but you seem to have arbritrarily excluded areas within the Municipal Corporation. That doesn't make since, at all. What is the area of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, and link us to the source.--Criticalthinker (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The population figure as listed by Census India specifically excludes the census towns. It's only appropriate to match the area and population figures. The source was i my edit summary if you're interested. If you know of a better figure, go ahead and change it. --Polaron | Talk 01:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't just add an explanation as a source. You've got to provide a link, or a detailed description of the source on the page. When I click on the "3" all I get is your personal explanation. That's not an acceptable source. And, again, please reply to me on my page. --Criticalthinker (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I was able to find, finally, the square kilometers of each of the three municipal corporations that make up the National Capitol Territory:

http://www.niua.org/city_des.asp?title=Delhi

Three local bodies are entrusted with the civic administration of Delhi state: Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1397.29 sq.km), New Delhi Municipal Committee (42.74 sq.km.) and Delhi Cantonment (42.97 sq.km.) Are you absolutely the sure the 2001 census numbers for Delhi aren't for the entire Delhi Municipal Corporation? --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is what we'll do with Delhi. The area of the Delhi Municipal Corporation isn't so large that we should use anything less than that municipal boundary. If you'd like to add the urban area, you can add that to the page of the world's largest conurbations. The only time we should ever use anything less than the municipal boundaries are cases like Chinese cities, other wise, administrative/municipal boundaries will be used. You can make these changes since you're using World Gazetter. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Polaron, what are we to do with the guy that keeps setting Delhi's population at 17 million? First off, I believe it's a number FAR to inpercise to include on the list. The list should be for official or even semi-official populations, not for impercise shots in the dark. Secondly, I'm pretty sure it's for the entire National Capital Territory, and it appears that it could also be a number for the urban area. The stat we want to use is that of the municipal boundaries of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi like we do for every other Indian city. Please, help. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter, Issue 4

Apologies for the late delivery; my internet connection went down halfway through the delivery process.

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fukuoko City and not Fukuoka, Fukuoka, etc.

Hi there. I see that you once argued for this (on the talk page for Fukuoka, Fukuoka) and I couldn t agree more. Nara, Nara, Kyoto, Kyoto etc. is ugly as it in no way reflects the way Japanese 'disambiguate', wouldn t you say. How far did discussion go in 2006 on this - I couldn t find it on the talk page for WP manuel of style for Japan. Best regards, Mayumashu (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I think your idea Fukuoka (city) is even better than Fukuoka City come to think of it, as it reflects that people generally when they say 'Fukuoka' are referring to the city and if they wish to refer to the prefecture, say 'Fukuoka Prefecture', don t they. I m not surprisd at all too to hear that preference for the American style is quite prevalent, that s why I took a peak at the talk page. anway, i ll take a look at the links you gave me. Mayumashu (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a lot of Fukuoka, Fukuoka likers out there. You know, compromise can also occur if Fukuoka became Fukuoka (disambiguation) and Fukuoka, Fukuoka becomes Fukuoka with a disambiguation header. Aren t all cities sharing names with prefectures prominent enough to justifiably take the "undisambiguatedly" page? Mayumashu (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

USRD participants list

As discussed at WT:USRD, the participants list at WP:USRD is being split by state. Due to any of the following factors- your extended participation in WT:USRD discussions, your IRC participation, or your extended participation in Shields or Maps, I have guessed that you are a nationwide editor and have designated you as such in the USRD partiicpants table. This is part of the lengthy process. If this is in error, please let me know immediately. This is especially likely with this group as I have to guess whether you are a national or a state editor. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 21:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Another creation request

Since you created a lot of redirects for ZIP Codes for Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, would you be willing to do it for New Hampshire? There are only six that need to be done. Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. While not totally familiar with the state, I do have a reference for it. --Polaron | Talk 01:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nyttend (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I-487

The yellow-orange tag is on that article do you know?This means this article is poorly written. Why can't it be merge while I-587 can. i-587 is existing sign highway, like other normal highways. I don't know why you want to keep everything a diff artilc.e.--Freewayguy ^{T C} 19:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Skagway

Hi, you may be interested in this conversation... Thanks-- L'Aquatique[talk] 05:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can provide a source that says that, right now, Skagway is its own borough, then we can keep your edits. The problem is, the only information I can find is old and it doesn't seem like anything has been done about it. Until Skagway actually secedes, we cannot split the articles because that will make it seem like a borough division has happened when it actually hasn't. Does that make sense? L'Aquatique[talk] 15:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It would save us a significant amount of time if you just gave us said sources instead of instructing us to go searching for them. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New Hampshire villages

You know me, not totally aware of New England governmental terms: what constitutes a village in New Hampshire? I thought I had it all down, that a New England village (outside of Vermont) was simply a community that wasn't by itself incorporated, but (a) part of an incorporated place, or (b) part of a grant, gore, etc. I'm going to continue listing villages on new NH templates: this is not a threat or scorn for your formatting, but simply a statement that without your help I don't know what's more appropriate than calling them villages. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's probably fine to do except that New Hampshire calls their special taxing districts as "village districts", which can be confused for the general non-legal term "village" referring to a named settlement within a town. It's probably fine to list them all (CDPs, village districts, and other sub-town areas) as villages. But if you're separating out CDPs already, which are also villages, it's best to avoid using the vague term "village" in my opinion. Now, if you lump all sub-town areas together regardless of legal status or census treatment, then village is an appropriate term to use. --Polaron | Talk 05:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi - Glad to see the work the two of you are doing on the county boxes. The only places where calling a CDP a village gives me a problem are for Tilton-Northfield and East Merrimack. In each of those cases, the CDP doesn't conform to a village center but is simply a sub-area of the town. So, is consistency necessary? Do we have to always lump CDPs in with the other villages, or can we in Belknap County and Hillsborough County keep them as a separate category? --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose if the correspondence between village and CDP is off in actual local usage we can split those cases to their own category. The case of Tilton-Northfield, however, corresponds to the village district of Tilton-Northfield. --Polaron | Talk 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reformatted the Coos County template according to how I'd have it; I'd appreciate it if you New Englanders would clean it up if necessary :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you, all New Hampshire communities (at least that I know of) have county templates! One question, though: on the templates, would it perhaps be better to make the townships without "Grant", "Gore", etc. be shown as "_____ Township" (for example, Odell Township)? Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If that style (adding Township to the name) is used locally, I don't see why not. However, I'm not familiar with local usage so perhaps User:Ken Gallager might be a better person to ask this. --Polaron | Talk 01:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't have JSTOR access. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pasting in what I wrote to Nyttend:

The names of the townships are used in New Hampshire the way they're listed in the template. State government, county government, and members of the public call the place "Odell", for example, not "Odell Township". It means that even those of us who know the state well are never quite sure whether a minor civil division is incorporated or not, and we have to double-check. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And the ones with "Grant" or "Location", etc., in their names are called that way ("X Grant", "Y Location"). Looked at one way, it doesn't seem to make sense that "Grant" or "Location" get into the names but "Township" doesn't, but people in New Hampshire consider all of the unincorporated minor civil divisions to be "townships" and don't use that name in any of them. Got that? :-) --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to the towns in Missouri

Remember the discussion we had with towns in Missouri back at the end of January? We've got an interesting situation going on at Template talk:Jefferson County, Missouri; could you look at it? Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

self-referential article should not be in main namespace

You stated in an edit summary that "self-referential article should not be in main namespace" is that WP policy and if so which policy? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not sure that I agree with your interpretation of policy, but I think that I agree with the end results of your efforts, the name change. I think that these signpost pages can be a useful tool like a disambiguation page is a useful tool. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mexico cities

I've started going through User:Supaman89's logs and it seems he's been moving these cities for a long, long time. I've started reverting them to match WP:NC:CITY#Mexico, but it will be a long process. JPG-GR (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits to List of Registered Historic Places in Tolland County, Connecticut

Hi ... I see you've edited some of the recent work I've done on List of Registered Historic Places in Tolland County, Connecticut. The reason I included a dab link for Rockville Historic District is because there are two other NRHP sites with exactly the same name in Indiana and South Carolina. WP:NRHP eventually intends to create articles for every site on the NRHP list and the state/county lists give editors a good place to start if they want to create new articles. As I've been creating the state/county list tables, I've taken the time to dab sites with names that are identical to sites in other locations. This will save future editors the trouble of figuring that out. Therefore, I'd prefer to revert that link to back the dab link.

I was mainly going by the principle of disambiguate only if needed. Since no article existed I assumed there were no other article-worthy entities with the exact same name. Since you're apparently working off the full list, I apologize for the error and please feel free to undo the link changes.

Also, you changed a blue link into a red link when you edited the Farwell Barn link. There's already a stub article named Farwell House that is about the same site. Per WP:NRHP, we want the names that the National Park Service has in their database to appear in the Wikipedia state/county lists; which is why I made it a piped link.

Then the option here would be to move the article to the proper name.

The "proper name" is not always clear. Many historic sites are known by more than one name. For example, what the National Park Service has in their database as the Henry C. Bowen House in Woodstock, CT is also known as Roseland Cottage and Bowen Cottage. The existing Wikipedia article happens to be named Roseland Cottage. But since we want the state/county NRHP lists to reflect the NPS name, a piped link is used in List of Registered Historic Places in Windham County, Connecticut.

Finally, I see that you're redirecting a bunch of the historic district links to the articles about the towns/cities in which they're located. Is there some precedent for this? These articles should be specifically about the historical significance of these districts. Unless the town/city article mentions the history of the district, it doesn't seem to me appropriate to redirect the links. Plus, it seems to me that it's useful for these links to remain red in the state/county lists so the people on our project know what needs to be created.

The articles do not exist yet. There is nothing precluding someone from creating a proper article which should be split off if it will make the town article too long. The districts that I redirected are the town centers of the various Connecticut towns. The historical significane of the district is directly related to the history of the town. I believe in these particular cases it is best to merge the town and the historic district articles.

Sorry to go on so long on your talk page, but I wanted to share my thoughts and work with you to come to some resolution of these issues. Thanks for bearing with me. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Specific replies inserted above. --Polaron | Talk 01:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See above re "proper name". --Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

New York State Route 343

Have also replied to User talk:Mitchazenia and on talkpage. Will pass the article on new considerations. Will allow leniency on the Broad in coveragepoints, as references may be hard to find that would show what the department of highways considered in constructed this road in this fashion, knowing that when such information is found, it will be added to the article. Please give me a shout when all of It is reasonably well written. are covered, re-explained myself on a couple. If you can at least add the AADT for the It is broad in its coverage. section as there is a reference for that aspect already, but not for the lanes, speeds, construction, grades, construction type, NYSDOT planning considerations. Will come to a compromise in that regards, it doesn't cover all that the other featured Hwy articles do, but does follow along the other featured NY highway articles. Kind Regards. SriMesh | talk 02:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well hello there again. The information has arrived. Are there a few of you'se working on New York Roads? I have been talking with as well as with User: Mitchazenia regarding the GA status. The information which has arrived is very full and detailed. It is the engineering report of which routes are in New York are....in which region, county, and control segment, each item of information in the data base pertains to a specific highway length between beginning and ending mile posts on that segment. Residency cods are included regarding highway maintenance. It is noted whether that segment is classed as divided or undivided, number of lanes in both directions, pavement width, shoulder width, shoulder type, surface content, surface condition, surface type, median width, median type, base type, sub-base type, terrain type, area type, culture type, percent parking, passing sight distance, per cent trucks, traffic count year, design hour volume, Average annual daily traffic, functional class, highway control code, year scored, year last work, access control to highway, adjusted rated capacity, national highway system principal arterial system, surface type from 1981 to 2006, reference marker, tandem truck designation, work type, pavement type. So this is the first database, the two files to explain the above glossary type terminology and expand on all the varieties of each of the above. There is also included a second database in the information sent named the Landmark table, which refers to the route, its letter, its region, county, control segment or county order control, beginning and end mile posts, landmark and reference marker number. So, therefore this is cool engineering information for the entire state. I want to share it with whoever is working on NY road articles. It is currently residing on Compact Disk as NY found it too large to email. The 2006 instruction pdf file is 1,550 Kb in length and the Highway sufficiency table pdf is 139,069 kb file which explain the data contents. The data is compiled with Microsoft access with the 2006 final landmark table being a *.ldb file (MS access) is 1 kb, the 2006 database table with all the inventory is a 11,892 kb *.mdb (ms Access ). So, this would add huge amounts to your highway articles. So contact me s'allright. SriMesh | talk 03:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, see the talk page of 343, and I will try to condense its info for you.

SriMesh | talk 03:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. Re database. I can snail mail to you a copy if you contact me with the particulars of where to send it. Do you have MS Access to view the database, or should I plop the database into MS excel which would open in a spreadsheet program. The ftp angle would also work. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 16:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. That is fine. Will send the same CD, as it is on the hard drive now, and cost isn't high for CD mail. Kind Regards again SriMesh | talk 14:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New York State Route 343

The article New York State Route 343 you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:New York State Route 343 for eventual comments about the article. Well done! SriMesh | talk 00:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(S)HA Census Area

Have you found any sources to drop Skagway? I've found http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/tentative/twls0821.html, a Library of Congress page from last month (oh wait, it's July now) 12 May that refers only to "H-A Census Area". If you don't have anything else, this would be a good source. Nyttend (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The GNIS database has had the new borough and Census Area names since mid-April. The former name has been marked as historical. --Polaron | Talk 12:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should have looked there... Nyttend (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

HI

Hey that's a lot of messages I see there. I think you might want to delete any "Taken Care of" old messages from like, oh I don't know... 2007! --Check77 (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Polaron_and_User:Mitchazenia

Er, ping. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford County, Maine county seat

I left a note on the article's talk page, but I also wanted to give you a heads-up here. While the town is, technically just "Paris", the State of Maine lists the county seat as "South Paris" on the state's official website. I didn't change your edit based on that though; it looks like an unclear or unsettled issue at the least, and either could be correct, depending on which source you use. Right or wrong, people commonly use Paris and South Paris interchangeably (or use South Paris as a synonym for Paris, because the Post Office does), and it looks like the muddling of the issue goes all the way up to state government. Ripogenus77 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to complain about this set of edits until I checked the National Association of Counties website (the GR6 reference), which says Paris. I'm inclined to go with Paris, both because I don't know of any other New England county seats that are neither a town nor a city, and because the GR6 reference seems to be the primary standard for defining our county seat references. By the way, thanks for adding the Somerset County UTs: I've created these templates from the categories for the various types of settlements, and I missed Somerset County because none of them were in the UT categories. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but,

If there isn't a lot of info on something, you shouldn't add a "Need of improvement" thing. People only know so much, and I know that actually existed because my reletive told me. That user (check77) that created it was right. If you want more info, you should put a "Help Wikpedia improve this article" thing on there.

By the way are you a admin? If yes, or no, who are the admins?

--Chessecake (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lynn Canal Highway

Why was the category of Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Census Area, Alaska deleted from the article? Any road that goes through Skagway (assuming it will, as the article states) would necessarily have to go through it. Skagway is still part of S-H-A Census Area, isn't it? Backspace (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not anymore. Skagway has become its own borough. --Polaron | Talk 12:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well, but then it leaves Skagway itself without a category. Backspace (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by area

Hello, Can you explain why did you revert my additions to the page List of countries and outlying territories by total area regarding some territorial disputes? I believe it's quite useful to know the actual areas under the jurisdiction of such countries as Moldova, Azerbaijan etc.

Sincerely, Sasha Morozov (IP 192.116.216.242) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.116.216.242 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Each figure should be sourced to a national census authority if that figure is not found in the reference used for the entire list. --Polaron | Talk 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I-587

Is an interstate. Don't they have much more notability than a state route? --FatChicksNeedLoveToo (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This proposed route, Interstate 687, has its own page and that wasn't even created. Doesn't make sense for I-587 not to have one. --FatChicksNeedLoveToo (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This was a project decision to merge I-587 into NY 28. I-587 is a designation that was overlaid on pavement used by NY 28. It would be redundant to talk about the same piece of pavement using two different articles. Please raise the issue at WT:NYSR. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the payment belongs to I-587. That stretch is built to interstate standards, so really NY 28 is using I-587's. And how is an interstate a NY State Route issue? >>FatChicksNeedLoveToo (talk)

No, the NY 28 designation was applied to that pavement before it was co-designated as I-587. The WP:NYSR project covers Interstate Highways in NY as well. Please bring up the matter there as it was a project decision to do so. You can also try the U.S. roads project if you want wider input. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 18:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that is true in many other places too then. Interstates weren't designated to the 1950s, so you are correct by saying NY 28 inhabited that area first. But the road had to be upgraded to interstate standards. I realize its a small, hidden interstate, but it is an interstate never-the-less. Unsigned interstates have their own pages here on Wikipedia, so I-587 should too. I took my discussion to the interstate project talk page. It shouldn't be restricted to just those in NY. >>FatChicksNeedLoveToo (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does New York State Route 990L have its own page and I-587 not? That's insane. --FatChicksNeedLoveToo (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll use this space. The section in NY 28 devoted to I-587 barely speaks of I-587 but it spins it as history to NY 28. A little blurb like that does not give the interstate justice. I believe I-587 was only moved there to give NY 28 the best chance possible to reach feature status. That is wrong. -- UWMSports (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammatically challenged

Are you really saying that “routes remains” is grammatically correct? --129.1.31.165 (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement is "only one of the routes remains". The sentence prior to your edit is grammatically correct. --Polaron | Talk 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what it says. It's "three letter-suffixed spur routes remains," with routes as a plural noun and remains as a singular verb. Are you really saying that combining a singular verb and plural noun is correct? --129.1.31.165 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. The sentence says "one of three routes remains". That is a grammatically correct sentence. The subject of the sentence is "one". The "of three letter-suffixed spur routes" is only a modifier of "one" (singular subject). In order to get correct subject-verb agreement, you must use a singular verb. This is a common mistake. --Polaron | Talk 21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Baghdad Governorate

For Baghdad Governorate, where'd you get the area from, and where did you get the information that Mahmoudiyah, Iraq is in Baghdad Governorate? --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're recent changes to Interstate 587

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)