User talk:Engleman/2005

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NH-118

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Hampshire Route 118 there is a VFD debate. --Rschen7754 03:16, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, and by the way, congratulations! You're the first to contact me via my talk page. I didn't know that beige box telling you about a message waiting even existed. --Engleman 00:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I-95

I'm curious about your edit to List of gaps in Interstate Highways. The most recent sources I can find still indicate I-295 ending at US 1:

I don't see anything new on misc.transport.road about a truncation; it appears it has not been done yet. --SPUI (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I now realized that I have misinterpreted my sources. While the New Jersey Turnpike has been designated I-95 to interchange 6 and on the extension to the Pennsylvania border, the other redesignation in New Jersey (I-95 from NJ-27 to US Route 1 to become I-295 (NJ)) has not yet occured.
My mistake was in making the logical somewhat even subconscious connection between the two redesignations, thinking that the re-routing of I-95 in New Jersey would have happened all at once. Apparently it didn't.
I seem to remember reading that in one of the other articles here though (That the old I-95 had been redesignated I-295), but maybe that's just the subconscious connection going on.
Whatever the case, your sources are better than mine, whether it was another Wikipedia article or just my brain over-analyzing.
I'll do my best to repair the damage I did when I get a chance; sorry for the trouble.
--Chris 03:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Road stubs

All of the following made their way to WP:SFD:

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Newburgh-Beacon Bridge

Hey, thanks for taking my one geo link and expanding it a bunch with lots of other neat links. I happened to stumble across that article recently. I used to live in Newburgh and take that bridge to and from work every day so I spotted a number of lane inaccuracies and stuff and made a few fixes. (I actually remember when the older bridge was closed to take it from 2 to 3 lanes so as soon as I saw "4 lanes" I knew it wasn't quite right...) Do you have personal familiarity with that bridge, or did you just happen to notice the article too one day? (since I see your edits are just prior to mine...) ++Lar 21:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC) (I put this page on watch, you can answer here or on my talk page as you like)

Sorry about the inaccuracies. I actually knew nothing of the history of the bridge until my mistakes were corrected. I know of course that there is now a 4 lane bridge and a 3 lane bridge. My mistake was that I figured that since it carries an Interstate Highway, it must have been at the very least 2 in each direction from the start. (Did the bridge pre-date I-84?) I knew that one bridge was older than the other, so I assumed that the 4 lane bridge was the older, and the 3 lane bridge was built to make it 3 lanes in each direction. Two things still confuse me though: (1) Why was the second bridge built with such a huge shoulder? (2) How did they manage to fit 3 lanes on a bridge designed for 2? Anyway, about me: I live in Westchester and ride on it when going upstate, because I just take the Taconic Parkway up to I-84 and over to the Thruway. My personal familiarity with that bridge is technically more than any other, since it's the only bridge I've ever driven on. (I recently got my learner's permit, and once I got the hang of local roads, I practiced on I-84 and I-87 on my way upstate.) --Chris 03:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
This is from memory... also from the NYSBA site... the original bridge was planned to be 4 lanes in the 50s but they couldn't afford it, so they built a conventional 2 lane bridge with narrow shoulders and railings/barriers that were spaced away from the truss members by a conventional amount. It predated I 84 since it opened in 1964ish, IIRC (the NYSBA site has the official dates). When I 84 went through it was connected to the bridge. Traffic was already over volume, but there was no way to make the bridge a LOT bigger. Through the late 60s and 70s a lot of stuff was floated. The decision was taken to build a second span. At that time they knew they would want to convert the older span if they could, to a 3 lane bridge. The second span was built knowing that they would want to use it for 2 lanes in each direction with a center divider, temporarily, while they rebuilt the first span. I moved there in 83 and at that time the older bridge was closed, they were working on it, and the newer bridge had 2 lanes each way with a fairly narrow shoulder (2-3 feet??) not really a safe shoulder, but better than nothing. and a concrete center divider (made of the temporary movable sections) Meanwhile they were working on the older bridge (you can notice it's older, the rivets are more pronounced and the truss beams are more built up from sheet pieces than the newer one which is the rustmetal and the pieces are a lot bigger)... what they did was take the older edge dividers out and put newer ones in that are squeezed into and among the girders to make the lanes as wide as they dare (they could have put new wider truss girders in but that would mean basically tearing the bridge center span down and just reusing the footings, much more expensive). Once they finished that, they pulled up the concrete barrier on the new bridge and took it from 2 way to 1 way... with the barrier gone and with the lanes shifted over to make the left shoulder very small, you get a very large right shoulder. So that's why the right shoulder is so big... A LOT of us were very happy in 1984 with the changed older bridge being opened because the eastbound used to back up halfway onto the bridge in morning rush, only 2 lanes to a toll plaza (this was way before IPass!!!) is a recipe for backups.... three lanes is a lot better!
(PS, what a ramble!! if you can refactor any of this into the article, go for it!! or I may take a try.. but it's not WP:V as is...) ++Lar 03:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, so all of that happened before I was born. I think I got most of my notion about the 4 lane origian bridge and the 3 lane add on from the Taconic Parkway's crossing over the Croton Reservoir. That's also weird, because the bridge that once carried 4 lanes now carries 3 with little shoulder. (The Newburgh-Beacon Bridge went from 2 to 3; this went from 4 to 3.) The difference is that the 4 lanes were dangerously narrow, and so the new bridge not only added a lane in either direction, but improved safety. I'll see if there's anything major that you just wrote that's not already in the article. --Chris 04:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

{{3di2}}

I don't understand this edit. Every link in that box is in the "Spur routes" section (which, by the way, is where people had been adding it, and is where the "project standards" say to put it). --SPUI (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You have a point, but I'm not so concerned with "following WikiProject standards" or "consistency among Interstates" as I am with having a unified navigation system among I-76 and its kids. It follows the same logic as some have used to justify the state routes. In going from NJ-42 to NJ-43 and so on, you get stuck at I-44, because there is no link to NJ-45. (Disclaimer: this is completely hypothetical; none of these routes exist) In this same way, people expect to get among the I-76 family in a unified way. Perhaps the whole spurs part should be removed in favor of the box, since you can get all of that info on each 3di's page. --Chris 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The {{3di}} template is for the 3DI articles, for that reason - to get between them. {{3di2}} was made for the 2DI articles, to use instead of text describing the spurs. However, the text that is currently there does a better job of describing the spurs; someone that forgot the exact number they are looking for may still be able to find the right one. --SPUI (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Although this is beside the main conflict, I just wanted to point out that you are wrong about Template:3di2. I know this because I made it. It's for 76, 84, 86, and 88, because it was impossible to get them and their children right with Template:3di (otherwise it links to the disambiguation page). Thus, both templates are designed for use on both 2dis and 3dis, to facilitate unified navigation among "families" of interstates.
Aside from that, you are right. The only purpose of having Template:3di or Template:3di2 on a 2di that has descriptions of each is to facilitate unified navigation. On the other hand, perhaps descriptions of each 3di should not be on the 2di page. It's easier to maintain that way. (Personally, I think brief descriptions probably are a good idea. Maybe Template:3di row should be edited/forked to allow for brief descriptions.) --Chris 01:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Nah, the navboxes on the 3DI articles are for easy navigation between the various 3DIs. Can you picture a description of every spur of I-95 at the bottom of each article? On the other hand, putting a short desctiption in the 2DI article is a lot more useful, and anyway only has to be updated when a 3DI is changed. --SPUI (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I agree, as long as the Spur routes section is a clearly marked bulleted list that is all-inclusive. It might even make sense to remove planned/defunct spurs from the box and have them just be listed on the 2di article. I guess it makes sense: description when going from parent to child, but only links when going among children. That seems consistent enough to me. So I am unopposed to this thinking, but there are certianly others you should talk this over with before going ahead and getting rid of all the 3di's and 3di2's on 2di articles. --Chris 02:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, thanks for understanding. Maybe in the template, only planned/dead ones that were not simply renumbered should be included? --SPUI (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever, the bit about planned/dead was just a side note. (I haven't thought about it much; I was just throwing it out there.) I just seem to remember that the editing of that row is always kind of weird. Perhaps a seperate row template for that row? (again, just throwing that out there)--Chris 02:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Kingston-Rhinecliff_Bridge

Hi, thanks for your many previous suggestions on the NB bridge....I would be pleased if you would take a peek at this article and give feedback, I realised that the NYSBA bridge article set was missing this one. Since this is a David B. Steinman bridge (my childhood hero) I just had to do up an article. It has the bridge infobox which the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge does not, what do you think of that? I don't have any pics of this bridge that are PD that I could find, although it might be for lack of looking well.. Also do you think an NYSBA box similar to NYC hudson river crossings is a good idea? It would mean some bridges get both... ++Lar 02:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I gave the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge a box, and made a new Template:Hudson River crossing, which I have placed on all NYSBA bridges, and eventually hope to have going up and down the entire river. --Chris 04:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Hudson River crossings

That rocks! One suggestion: instead of "preceded" and "succeeded" can it be "to the South" and "to the North" or similar captioning? I didn't dare try to just make the change since you said you're still hacking it, plus I am not totally sure I grok how the nested subst works... but man that's cool. I like it better than a second box with all of them. How do you plan to handle the Hudson/Harlem split? Just ignore the Harlem? (meaning that the Henry Hudson Bridge would not be linked in...) Thanks for taking that on! ++Lar 04:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I should change those; I guess I can stop the subst-ing and just go in directly and edit them. The Harlem is something to think about, as is the ends. (I don't take into account that it might be the last.) Once this is fully implemented, perhaps the NYC one should go. We'll have to see what others think of it. --Chris 04:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've done that; for the ends, for now, just put "none" (or perhaps on the south, Atlantic Ocean or something). For the Harlem, that would be too confusing (not to mention; you'd have to go through alot to get between the Tappan Zee and the GWB) --Chris 04:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I think having it peter out into Atlantic Ocean at the S basically makes sense (presumably omit the Staten Island ferry, etc as crossings and only do bridges and tunnels?) but where does the Hudson end (to be pedantic)? Should the list stop when you reach NY Harbour? That is, leave out the Verrazano Narrows? Also to the N as it gets smaller and smaller the bridges get less significant. N of the Berkshire extension is a US 20 bridge called the Dunn memorial IIRC (it's been a while) that is not a very big bridge at all, and probably unencyclopedic?? The I 90 bridges N of that are even less significant, although the bridge N of THOSE ([1] has) a name... ... as you go upstream the bridges get more and more frequent. So I dunno. Maybe stopping at the Berkshire Extension is the way to go (since putting that box in the NYS thruway article would be weird anyway). ++Lar 04:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I forgot about NY harbor, but for tonight I'm stopping at the city line, because 3 might be too many ({{Hudson River crossing}}, {{NYC Hudson River crossings}}, and {{NY-bt}}). For the north, you have a point, but of course any bridge without an article won't get one anyway (unless someone wishes to start one). And yes, having one of those on the Thruway would be weird. I'm going to bed soon (I'm only up this late to watch the NYCTA strike. (My Christmas vacation has already started if they strike; which it really looks like, with 3 mins to go) --Chris 04:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you did great! If you were rooting FOR a transit strike I guess you got your wish, if against, sorry! I may take it a little farther south today, see how I feel. ++Lar 18:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to talk to everyone who uses {{NYC Hudson River crossings}} about replacing it. And yes, I was rooting for it. No school since yesterday afternoon until January 3. (although I guess I feel bad for those whose jobs may be in danger due to inability to get to work on time) --Chris 19:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
See what you think about what I did to the HH, GW and TZ.. I did not create a new template I just parameter substitution overloaded yours, and it works, sort of. The HH looks a bit funny though. I tried commenting out the usage of the NYC box in a couple (but left the NYC bridges and tunnels box) to see how it looks. Comment/hack away... ++Lar 20:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
What makes the Harlem special? Why not the Mohawk? Why not the East River? Why list a Harlem River crossing in a template called "Hudson River crossings"? The two are very destinct, and the general public knows the difference, especially since crossing the Harlem leaves you in the same City, while by that point, crossing the Hudson leaves you in Jersey. It just seems sort of irrelavent to me. Also, note that Harelm River crossings are all listed in {{NY-bt}} which I am not proposing to remove. Also note that the template which I am proposing to remove, {{NYC Hudson River crossings}} doesn't have the Henry Hudson bridge, so switching templates will not reduce functionality. --Chris 21:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

(shift left) Well, I dunno. I might be all wet with this idea! (sorry for that pun!) I sort of thought that it would be cool to be able to go down the Harlem bridge by bridge, get to the East River, and carry on around the bottom of Manhattan and then connect back in to the Hudson again from the bottom. The way I see it, the lower Hudson, Harlem, and East all really are part of the same big outlet to the sea because they all feed into NY harbour or LI sound. I'm not saying that the HH should keep the Hudson River Crossings template invocation long term, because as you say, it's not actually on the river, I just wanted to try a quick Y link to see how it works. If it doesn't work it's easy to back out because no new templates were created yet. As for the Mohawk, it doesn't have the same wraparound effect (of being able to get back to the Hudson again if you follow from bridge to bridge long enough) but ya, why not, if people wanted to be able to walk crossings in that direction too, there would be 3 crossings that were the Y of that (somewhere near here: Hudson/Mohawk junction I think..) which would get modified templates, and then you walk crossings to the west. Or were you just thinking a linear walk up and down the Hudson with nothing else involved? That's fine too. Those bridges are all way more major than Mohawk bridges anyway... the BM was the largest suspension in the world at one point... Helps? ++Lar 21:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point about them all being in a system sort of, but {{NY-bt}} takes care of that. Also, are you personally opposed to the replacement of {{NYC Hudson River crossings}}? (I put notices on all talk pages of the articles that use it, and have not yet had any opposition to that, so I will probably put it on WP:TFD shortly.)--Chris 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not opposed. When I saw it the first time I sort of thought it went too far north anyway (where is the end of the NYC area?? depends on your definition!). I think the categorisation of which crossings are where is useful but there are other ways to capture that info and right now some of those pages are very cluttered. I would not oppose a WP:TFD call and would probably post support. I suggest waiting a day or three more though to see who else chimes in, it being the holidays and all. ++Lar 22:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I'll wait till tommorrow. I just wanted to notify (as a courtesy; I'm not required to warn someone about a TFD) those involved with these pages before opening up the debate (if there is one) to all of Wikipedia. Once on TFD, they still have another 7 days to dispute it. That brings us to December 28th. I think that's plenty of time. --Chris 22:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and voiced my support... hope it helps. Not seeing much other discussion there yet, we'll see. ++Lar 23:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... still only has a few comments, although you did annotate the usual suspects talk pages. It may fail for lack of consensus even though they are all delete. No idea what to suggest that is decorous, I'm a noob... ++Lar 14:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that counts as consensus (no stated opinion by the many that have seen it but not commented probably means that they agree with the opinions that are already stated) --Chris 00:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I redid the section around the Y, careful not to remove any info you added. --Chris 00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

saw that, looks good. I wouldn't have been upset if you had though... it was just an experiment. I think you improved it though. Thanks! ++Lar 15:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I-80 image

I was hoping that the author would fix the images. If not I'll fix the routebox. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)`

If we change one we might have to change them all- I'll take a look at it right now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Never mind, I think I fixed it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm an admin,... but I think the author has to be notified and we have to wait 5 days forst. I could be wrong on that though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Since we have User talk:Kamlung I deleted it... I hope. I hope I deleted the right thing... this is my first week as an admin so I'm still getting used to things...--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Uggh. I hit "Delete all revisions of this image" like Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide says... but it's still there! What the heck? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Well it's gone... the deleting admin didn't really know what the problem was either "weird glitch -- image inexistant, but still has database entry" --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Tolled sections of Interstate Highways

The idea was that this would not include every Interstate Highway that has a tolled section, but rather every tolled section of an Interstate Highway. All of these facilities (other than a few that are co-terminous with Interstates) will have their own articles. --SPUI (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove them. --Chris 23:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Engleman/2005&oldid=974179013"