Writing about roads on Wikipedia

[thspfc]

Inspired by some of you on this forum, I've started adding some information to existing highway pages on Wikipedia. I just finished the Route Description section for the WI-69 page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Highway_69, as there wasn't a route description section previously. I plan to do more Wiki projects in the future. Anyone want to share their work/offer advice?

[Scott5114]

A good place to start is New user orientation. You should also consider visiting #wikipedia-en-roads on the Freenode IRC server, so you can talk to the other Wikipedians one on one and get real-time feedback on your edits.

One thing that jumps out at me on the WIS 69 article there is a lack of references in the route description. Usually, you'll need a reference for anything that is not easily verifiable (mostly distances in route descriptions, but also the names of any obscure geographical features like hills or small streams), and one at the end of every paragraph describing which map you got the general route from.

A good shortcut is to look at a Michigan road article of comparable length and shoot for that.

[Desert Man]

CA routes 177 and 195 (Pierce Street in Coachella Valley) and the defunct 231 (66th Avenue again in the Coachella Valley) were former US routes 62-64-195 (a fork of the US 95 and AZ 95-I think they were US 95-W for CA and US 95-E at one time) in 1940's-era maps of Southern CA. There wasn't a source to include in Wikipedia, but the talk articles mentioned the very issue of past numerations that kept changing. There was an AZ/now La Paz county route 1 in the Colorado River reservation from I-10 east of Blythe CA to its terminus in Parker AZ/Big River CA.

[TheStranger]

CA routes 177 and 195 (Pierce Street in Coachella Valley) and the defunct 231 (66th Avenue again in the Coachella Valley) were former US routes 62-64-195 (a fork of the US 95 and AZ 95-I think they were US 95-W for CA and US 95-E at one time) in 1940's-era maps of Southern CA. There wasn't a source to include in Wikipedia, but the talk articles mentioned the very issue of past numerations that kept changing. There was an AZ/now La Paz county route 1 in the Colorado River reservation from I-10 east of Blythe CA to its terminus in Parker AZ/Big River CA.

US 62, 64, and 195 all never went to California at all - nothing in any map pre-1964 I have seen to corroborate this.

There was never a US 95E/95W in California either.  The only suffixed US routes I am aware of in this state are the familiar US 99E/99W split north of Sacramento, the short-lived 99E/99W split in Manteca, and the US 101E/W split between San Jose and Oakland/San Francisco.

[Max Rockatansky]

CA routes 177 and 195 (Pierce Street in Coachella Valley) and the defunct 231 (66th Avenue again in the Coachella Valley) were former US routes 62-64-195 (a fork of the US 95 and AZ 95-I think they were US 95-W for CA and US 95-E at one time) in 1940's-era maps of Southern CA. There wasn't a source to include in Wikipedia, but the talk articles mentioned the very issue of past numerations that kept changing. There was an AZ/now La Paz county route 1 in the Colorado River reservation from I-10 east of Blythe CA to its terminus in Parker AZ/Big River CA.

US 62, 64, and 195 all never went to California at all - nothing in any map pre-1964 I have seen to corroborate this.

There was never a US 95E/95W in California either.  The only suffixed US routes I am aware of in this state are the familiar US 99E/99W split north of Sacramento, the short-lived 99E/99W split in Manteca, and the US 101E/W split between San Jose and Oakland/San Francisco.

I believe he's referring to AZ 95 which was around before US 95 was extended to Arizona.  AZ 95 south of Quartzsite was annexed into US 95 when it was extended.  I want to say the US 195 being referred to is CA 195. 

Regarding Wikipedia, I used to write on it but that was well over a decade ago.  It's a little too stodgy and full of people who get angry about minute things (formatting and article length) for my tastes.   Besides, I like to write about stuff that Wikipedia doesn't have. 

[Desert Man]

CA routes 177 and 195 (Pierce Street in Coachella Valley) and the defunct 231 (66th Avenue again in the Coachella Valley) were former US routes 62-64-195 (a fork of the US 95 and AZ 95-I think they were US 95-W for CA and US 95-E at one time) in 1940's-era maps of Southern CA. There wasn't a source to include in Wikipedia, but the talk articles mentioned the very issue of past numerations that kept changing. There was an AZ/now La Paz county route 1 in the Colorado River reservation from I-10 east of Blythe CA to its terminus in Parker AZ/Big River CA.

US 62, 64, and 195 all never went to California at all - nothing in any map pre-1964 I have seen to corroborate this.

There was never a US 95E/95W in California either.  The only suffixed US routes I am aware of in this state are the familiar US 99E/99W split north of Sacramento, the short-lived 99E/99W split in Manteca, and the US 101E/W split between San Jose and Oakland/San Francisco.

I believe he's referring to AZ 95 which was around before US 95 was extended to Arizona.  AZ 95 south of Quartzsite was annexed into US 95 when it was extended.  I want to say the US 195 being referred to is CA 195. 

Regarding Wikipedia, I used to write on it but that was well over a decade ago.  It's a little too stodgy and full of people who get angry about minute things (formatting and article length) for my tastes.   Besides, I like to write about stuff that Wikipedia doesn't have. 

Ok then, this explains everything about my urge to edit Wikipedia. I used to be a regular editor there from 2006-2012 when I decided to quit Wikipedia due to its reputation was in decline, a place where "everyone can edit nonsense to ruin an article's encyclopediac and academic value". Many articles are strictly supervised by more serious editors with much more restriction and regulation.

[davmillar]

CA routes 177 and 195 (Pierce Street in Coachella Valley) and the defunct 231 (66th Avenue again in the Coachella Valley) were former US routes 62-64-195 (a fork of the US 95 and AZ 95-I think they were US 95-W for CA and US 95-E at one time) in 1940's-era maps of Southern CA. There wasn't a source to include in Wikipedia, but the talk articles mentioned the very issue of past numerations that kept changing. There was an AZ/now La Paz county route 1 in the Colorado River reservation from I-10 east of Blythe CA to its terminus in Parker AZ/Big River CA.

US 62, 64, and 195 all never went to California at all - nothing in any map pre-1964 I have seen to corroborate this.

There was never a US 95E/95W in California either.  The only suffixed US routes I am aware of in this state are the familiar US 99E/99W split north of Sacramento, the short-lived 99E/99W split in Manteca, and the US 101E/W split between San Jose and Oakland/San Francisco.

I believe he's referring to AZ 95 which was around before US 95 was extended to Arizona.  AZ 95 south of Quartzsite was annexed into US 95 when it was extended.  I want to say the US 195 being referred to is CA 195. 

Regarding Wikipedia, I used to write on it but that was well over a decade ago.  It's a little too stodgy and full of people who get angry about minute things (formatting and article length) for my tastes.   Besides, I like to write about stuff that Wikipedia doesn't have. 

Ok then, this explains everything about my urge to edit Wikipedia. I used to be a regular editor there from 2006-2012 when I decided to quit Wikipedia due to its reputation was in decline, a place where "everyone can edit nonsense to ruin an article's encyclopediac and academic value". Many articles are strictly supervised by more serious editors with much more restriction and regulation.

It's a balance. You kinda have to go into it expecting your changes to be deleted by a territorial jerk that cares more about being technically correct than being useful and then allow yourself a small amount of cautious optimism if it doesn't happen. There are pages about highways that have bizarre and confusing navigation, but it's 'consistent' (with whatever substance the editor was abusing when they came up with it), and no amount of asking for clarification or attempts at fostering discussion on their talk page will do any good.

[Max Rockatansky]

CA routes 177 and 195 (Pierce Street in Coachella Valley) and the defunct 231 (66th Avenue again in the Coachella Valley) were former US routes 62-64-195 (a fork of the US 95 and AZ 95-I think they were US 95-W for CA and US 95-E at one time) in 1940's-era maps of Southern CA. There wasn't a source to include in Wikipedia, but the talk articles mentioned the very issue of past numerations that kept changing. There was an AZ/now La Paz county route 1 in the Colorado River reservation from I-10 east of Blythe CA to its terminus in Parker AZ/Big River CA.

US 62, 64, and 195 all never went to California at all - nothing in any map pre-1964 I have seen to corroborate this.

There was never a US 95E/95W in California either.  The only suffixed US routes I am aware of in this state are the familiar US 99E/99W split north of Sacramento, the short-lived 99E/99W split in Manteca, and the US 101E/W split between San Jose and Oakland/San Francisco.

I believe he's referring to AZ 95 which was around before US 95 was extended to Arizona.  AZ 95 south of Quartzsite was annexed into US 95 when it was extended.  I want to say the US 195 being referred to is CA 195. 

Regarding Wikipedia, I used to write on it but that was well over a decade ago.  It's a little too stodgy and full of people who get angry about minute things (formatting and article length) for my tastes.   Besides, I like to write about stuff that Wikipedia doesn't have. 

Ok then, this explains everything about my urge to edit Wikipedia. I used to be a regular editor there from 2006-2012 when I decided to quit Wikipedia due to its reputation was in decline, a place where "everyone can edit nonsense to ruin an article's encyclopediac and academic value". Many articles are strictly supervised by more serious editors with much more restriction and regulation.

It's a balance. You kinda have to go into it expecting your changes to be deleted by a territorial jerk that cares more about being technically correct than being useful and then allow yourself a small amount of cautious optimism if it doesn't happen. There are pages about highways that have bizarre and confusing navigation, but it's 'consistent' (with whatever substance the editor was abusing when they came up with it), and no amount of asking for clarification or attempts at fostering discussion on their talk page will do any good.

Or rather one could simply stick to a site that they manage and someone else can go through the trouble of doing an external link.  Personally I rather just do my own thing and if someone think that merits inclusion on Wikipedia that's cool.

[rschen7754]

As a disclosure which I should probably get out of the way first, I have edited Wikipedia for 15+ years and am an administrator there, and am heavily involved in the roads projects.

I'm not going to pretend that there aren't problems with road articles and/or Wikipedia - some of our editors are admittedly uptight about more minute details like formatting and sourcing. And quite frankly, I think that there is going to be an upcoming battle between the paid Foundation staff and a lot of the editing base that just might tear the site apart. I've thought about quitting a few times and admittedly because of work/other commitments I'm not as active as I would like to be.

But ultimately, because it is on Wikipedia, a top 20 Internet site, I've found that the possibilities for audience impact as well as resources for collaboration are much larger than they would be if I spun up my own web site. I'll admit that it is not for everyone. The writing style is way more formal than the average website and the research can be difficult. Even in the last few years when I haven't had as much time I've focused on more "behind the scenes" tasks like making shields and still feel like I am having an impact - at a time when our society needs more truth and accurate information, not less. Maybe the day will come when the negatives of Wikipedia outweigh the positives but I don't think we are there yet.

Anyway, if you feel like your edits are being reverted unfairly, I'm happy to look at it and provide a second opinion. But please, don't make obsessive changes to junction lists or infoboxes, because that is bound to get you reverted very quickly.

[-- US 175 --]

As a disclosure which I should probably get out of the way first, I have edited Wikipedia for 15+ years and am an administrator there, and am heavily involved in the roads projects.

I'm not going to pretend that there aren't problems with road articles and/or Wikipedia - some of our editors are admittedly uptight about more minute details like formatting and sourcing. And quite frankly, I think that there is going to be an upcoming battle between the paid Foundation staff and a lot of the editing base that just might tear the site apart. I've thought about quitting a few times and admittedly because of work/other commitments I'm not as active as I would like to be.

But ultimately, because it is on Wikipedia, a top 20 Internet site, I've found that the possibilities for audience impact as well as resources for collaboration are much larger than they would be if I spun up my own web site. I'll admit that it is not for everyone. The writing style is way more formal than the average website and the research can be difficult. Even in the last few years when I haven't had as much time I've focused on more "behind the scenes" tasks like making shields and still feel like I am having an impact - at a time when our society needs more truth and accurate information, not less. Maybe the day will come when the negatives of Wikipedia outweigh the positives but I don't think we are there yet.

Anyway, if you feel like your edits are being reverted unfairly, I'm happy to look at it and provide a second opinion. But please, don't make obsessive changes to junction lists or infoboxes, because that is bound to get you reverted very quickly.

If I have edited a site (hmm, which one, hmm, which one  ), and I have a blog about the same subject, do you think I'd be able to link it with the External links (even though Wikipedia prefers not to), or should I find some way to make my blog into a website first?  I figure a blog is simpler than a full website to keep up, and I've already added text/content/photos to the Wikipedia article.  Thanks rschen.

[rschen7754]

As a disclosure which I should probably get out of the way first, I have edited Wikipedia for 15+ years and am an administrator there, and am heavily involved in the roads projects.

I'm not going to pretend that there aren't problems with road articles and/or Wikipedia - some of our editors are admittedly uptight about more minute details like formatting and sourcing. And quite frankly, I think that there is going to be an upcoming battle between the paid Foundation staff and a lot of the editing base that just might tear the site apart. I've thought about quitting a few times and admittedly because of work/other commitments I'm not as active as I would like to be.

But ultimately, because it is on Wikipedia, a top 20 Internet site, I've found that the possibilities for audience impact as well as resources for collaboration are much larger than they would be if I spun up my own web site. I'll admit that it is not for everyone. The writing style is way more formal than the average website and the research can be difficult. Even in the last few years when I haven't had as much time I've focused on more "behind the scenes" tasks like making shields and still feel like I am having an impact - at a time when our society needs more truth and accurate information, not less. Maybe the day will come when the negatives of Wikipedia outweigh the positives but I don't think we are there yet.

Anyway, if you feel like your edits are being reverted unfairly, I'm happy to look at it and provide a second opinion. But please, don't make obsessive changes to junction lists or infoboxes, because that is bound to get you reverted very quickly.

If I have edited a site (hmm, which one, hmm, which one  ), and I have a blog about the same subject, do you think I'd be able to link it with the External links (even though Wikipedia prefers not to), or should I find some way to make my blog into a website first?  I figure a blog is simpler than a full website to keep up, and I've already added text/content/photos to the Wikipedia article.  Thanks rschen.

It depends. For example, AARoads generally has comprehensive enough coverage to where it is usually included, and there are some of the more long-term sites (i.e. cahighways.org) that provide enough information beyond anything that could ever be included in the article. But something that doesn't provide something unique, maybe not.

Generally if it's *you* adding the link to your own site, it will draw more scrutiny.

[Scott5114]

I'm not going to pretend that there aren't problems with road articles and/or Wikipedia - some of our editors are admittedly uptight about more minute details like formatting and sourcing. [...] But please, don't make obsessive changes to junction lists or infoboxes, because that is bound to get you reverted very quickly.

This is a point that I've never really noticed, but I think it needs to be underscored because it's important. Most people have a natural inclination to start out on a project like Wikipedia tweaking the "little things" because they're afraid of messing up something by doing a big edit. But on Wikipedia, the little things were all set up and made uniform with each other years and years ago, so by making a small edit you're likely to break consistency with every other road article and get reverted.

The best way to not get reverted is to dive in and write a chunk of new content backed up by a few references. (Remember that roadgeek sites are not generally accepted as references. You need references to DOT sources and news sources. We didn't make the rules on that one.) Someone may come in behind you and strip out a few sentences judged to be irrelevant or not supported by good sources, or revise your wording, or tweak your references to be standard. But your work will still be there.