Government documents and reliable maps like Google Maps are not original research. There are admittedly some SPS included (i.e. the Angelfire site) but you just removed the entire article. --Rschen775420:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
It is when you're using them to state things which are not explicitly stated in the sources, such as here. That is not appropriate use of primary sources, thats not even talking about whether its due or not (it isn't). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
From the beginning "U.S. Route 76 Truck (US 76 Truck) is a short truck detour around a low railroad bridge in Ringgold, which is also concurrent with US 41 Truck for its entire length, which is only approximately one-half mile (800 m)." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The "low" part maybe not, but one can verify that it is 1) a detour around a railroad bridge, 2) in Ringgold, 3) concurrent with US... 4) approximately one-half mile. --Rschen775400:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how to verify the length without doing original analysis. Nor can I verify that its a detour, it is not labeled as such. Nor can I verify that it is concurrent with US 41 Truck. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
That one in particular I have removed because it appears that the US 76 Truck designation is not on Google Maps. I cannot comment on whether it was there when User:Morriswa wrote that section. As a project we believe that maps are valid sources, however they do have limitations, and that particular one was not a valid use. (But, that article was also not GA/FA, and also not written by Fredddie, who only split the article - this was clearly documented in the edit summary). --Rschen775400:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The rest are the same, that one wasn't cherrypicked it was literally just the first one. I think its time to AfD it, I'm not seeing any reason to work at improving an article that isn't notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
As has been explained, Google Maps and other (independent) maps are secondary sources - the primary source is the GIS data used to make the maps. --Rschen775420:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I remember most people explaining that that wasn't the case but if you would like to link me sources about maps being secondary I'l happily read them. Horse Eye's Back (talk)
It doesn't matter, the logic doesn't work backwards. FA using Google Maps =/= Google Maps being a reliable secondary source. Please actually work through the text with me as you promised to above. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Happy to answer (sincere) questions, but let's get one thing straight: I didn't promise anything nor do I owe you anything. All you have here is your own radical interpretation of sourcing which one can suspect is not mainstream, given how WP:FAC operates. --Rschen775400:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Given the current discussion on at ANI it would seem that the community views WikiProject Highways as having the radical interpretation of sourcing. There certainly is not a widespread endorsement of the view that you can build complex article content from maps and other primary documents. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not that difficult. A satellite image is a primary source. A GIS dataset of every single mile of public roadway in a state is a primary source. A map drawn by John Smith of Lake Ontario on his 1775 voyage is a primary source. It supplies the data (primary), and has no external oversight. A map which organizes those roads into various categories and symbologies, omits the little laneways to a house in the woods, and delineates various points into different classes is a secondary source. A map which compiles a variety of sources into one readable navigation aid is a secondary source. A map which compares John Smith's drawing to modern satellite imagery is a secondary source. It filters and includes the data that is important and not what isn't (secondary). An article that discusses the social and political ramifications of John Smith's map and how it gave prominence to a certain demographic, as opposed to the more accurate map drawn by Henry Walker in 1776 that was never used, is a tertiary source. It takes a combination of primary and secondary sources, and forms a (hopefully) neutral summary of them. - Floydianτ¢20:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago29 comments4 people in discussion
Hi. When searching on Google for road lengths, I can't find any gov.uk reports etc. Does anyone have any suggestions of any useful websites? I have tried Google Maps, although it tries to take shortcuts. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
That's because it's GIS data and not a simple table of lengths. You'll need to download a program like QGIS and run queries on the data. There are lots of tutorials that you can Google that will show you how to do that. –Fredddie™01:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Are there any other useful websites, that don't include downloading programs, or is that the only trusted website for road lengths? Roads4117 (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fredddie, are there any other website that don't include downloading programs, which are more than likely going to use up all my data and/or storage on my device. Roads4117 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Do you not have a PC/laptop? Download qGIS and you'll be able to open those files. We can help you work with the program if need be. - Floydianτ¢22:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Excuse the fundamental math, I'm just using it for demonstration's sake, but say I have a spreadsheet that shows every segment of highway. Highway X comprises two segments, the first 1 mile, the second 2 miles. You're saying it's OR to use Excel to calculate Highway X's length at 3 miles? I just want to understand if that's what you're saying. –Fredddie™00:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Where did the spreadsheet come from? If you made it thats a no go. I don't think I've ever seen an excel spreadsheet cited as a source, have you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
As long as you don't have to do anything besides simple addition yeah I think that would be fine. But you can't run any complex analysis on it. Do we cite a single one of these? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I think there is an instance or two in a Wisconsin article, but the data was a) given to an editor from a DOT employee with the promise to keep it offline and b) several years old when it was acquired, so it was used sparingly. –Fredddie™03:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Because it doesn't matter. It was a long time ago and it was hardly used and has probably been replaced by now. I don't even know what articles it was used on. –Fredddie™03:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The sentence right before that is "Source material must have been published, the definition of which for the purposes of Wikipedia is made available to the public in some form." (their emphasis) A government official giving a private citizen a file is quite literally making it available to the public in some form. If building trust with someone to get access to documents that normally would not have been available at all is bad, then I don't want to be right.
In some jurisdictions, we could have taken that spreadsheet and uploaded it to Commons simply because someone in the right agency created the file. But public domain is a different discussion entirely. –Fredddie™03:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
One individual is not the public. The public means the public. You yourself said that it was given to that individual on the condition that it *not* be published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
And I could have got the details wrong. It was nearly 10 years ago. I forget what I had for lunch some days. –Fredddie™03:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Likewise, I want to make sure you understand that there is gray area in everything (except creating a "X on Wheels" username). Looking at everything in black and white terms all the time is just going to give you a headache. –Fredddie™04:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Roads4117 has been adding to the list of "major junctions" in many articles. Their view (Roads4117, correct me if I have misunderstood) is that if the joining road is an A-class road, then by definition that makes it major. My view is that only national ['green'] routes are notable enough to be listed, but as a minimum the joining road has to be notable enough to have its own article. But, apart from WP:general notability guidelines, I can find no policy statement either way. Am I being too picky? Does anybody really care if Wikipedia becomes a simulacrum of Sabre Roads? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC) }
Hello
Me and John Maynard Friedman have been having a debate about what is classified as a major junction, on my userpage. I was wondering if you could help.
John Maynard Friedman apologies for not seeing the original discussion a month ago. There has always been a certain amount of editor discretion used to decide what is or is not a major junction, so there will probably never be a notability guideline for infobox junctions. On one hand, A4146 and A4012 both have four digits so neither route is very long (that's my rudimentary understanding of route numbering in the UK), but on the other hand, A4012 is the only route that's not on green signs. Both arguments are valid, but ultimately it does not matter if A4012 is included or not. Roads4117 that's not a carte blanche to add any four-digit route to any infobox, you have to be measured and be able to explain your reasoning.
As far as Wikipedia becoming Sabre Roads, it's been my experience with U.S. roadgeek sites that people who operate them generally don't want to edit here because they don't want to bother with those pesky 'cite your sources' rules. They're also used to their word being taken for gospel, so they don't like that any rando can edit (nearly) any article after them. That being said, we should strive to be better than Sabre Roads. Use it as a guide but don't copy it outright. Scour the newspaper archives and create better content. –Fredddie™13:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The four-digit roads make a poor example, because few are important national primary routes in themselves. At the opposite extreme, see A1 road (Great Britain) (London–Edinburgh) with hundreds of junctions. [Some routes are born great etc.]
So yes, a junction with another four-digit road might be WP:DUE for a given four-digit road but is likely to be WP:UNDUE for one of the single digit roads. My main concern is with infoboxes getting clogged with trivia – ref WP:NOTEVERYTHING.
So I guess what is needed is some advice to editors regarding what is discreet and what is indiscreet [wrong word I know but I guess you know what I mean]. I like my infoboxes to be an alternative lead and so meet the standards of WP:LEAD: keep it concise. Someone in a rush should be able to get the key points of the article from the lead and the infobox and not get bogged down in ifs buts and excepts. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
For the US, we fairly strictly enforce a 10-junction limit on the infobox, borne out of commentary at an FAC in like 2006 or so. Depending on the length of the subject of the article, that means we start playing with some general rules of thumb. We'd list all intersecting Interstates, then intersecting US Highways, then finally add intersecting state highways. County roads, if applicable, are the lowest tier and rarely listed, usually only on an article about another county road.
If we have to break ties, freeway status trumps non-freeways, two-digit Interstates trump three digits, etc. In some cases, to break a tie for the last entry, we omit both to avoid going over the limit. The idea is to apply some logic to making the decision. Start with the most important junctions and work downward in priority to fill out the list, stopping at the desired limit. When in doubt, remember that all of them above a certain threshold priority will be in the junction list table anyway. I think of the infobox as an adjunct to the lead: the text of the lead summarizes the text of the article, and the junction list in the infobox summarizes the junction list table while carrying a few other details. Imzadi 1979→14:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Let me reply to myself to add one thing I didn't mention before. Just because we have 10 as our upper limit doesn't mean we always list 10. To keep the infobox proportional to the prose in the lead, we might only list 6 junctions. A freeway like M-6 (Michigan highway) only intersects two other highways aside from its termini, so it has just two intermediate junctions in the infobox. Imzadi 1979→15:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
My opinion is that is depends on the length of the road. For example, the A1 or the A38 should only have primary routes in the infobox, because otherwise, as John Maynard Friedman said on my userpage, the infobox would get cluttered with trivia. However, on a smaller route, such as the A4146, then non-primary routes are fine. I also think there should be maximum of 20 routes per infobox, before going primary routes only.
As I noted above, Roads4117, USRD has a fairly strict 10-junction limit based on good feedback on a Featured Article Candidate like 15 years ago. On my screen, my browser window approximates a sheet of paper, and I wouldn't want the infobox to be longer than the text of the lead plus table of contents, give or take. (The new Vector 2022 skin will do similar by limiting line length regardless of window width.) For that reason, I'd say that your idea of 20 junctions is too many. Imzadi 1979→14:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Even 20 may be pushing it. Generally 10 is the usual maximum, with the occasional exception for long routes or for backbones that have a lot of freeways branching from them. Floydianτ¢15:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Imzadi1979, I like that rule of thumb. It means that it is the editors who know a route well who are left to decide which ones are DUE and which ones UNDUE, rather than have some arbitrary "one-size-fits-all" rule like "only 1- and 2- digit road junctions in a 1-digit road infobox" [deliberately extreme to illustrate the point]. I suspect an exception might need to be made for the A1 as it is so long, but maybe the 'baseline' rule would be 10 in England and 10 in Scotland as a starting point. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I would say that even for the A1, 10 tops. Not 10 for England and 10 for Scotland, 10 total. There are currently 69 junctions there. On my screen, the infobox ends in the middle of the Inns section, meaning it is longer than the lead, the table of contents and the history section. That's very excessive, and actually, it's longer than the junction list table, so that infobox is no longer acting as a summary of the article. Imzadi 1979→16:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I just took a cursory look at the A1 and if I were going to redo the junctions in the infobox, I would only include the motorways. That's one way you can really pare down the list. –Fredddie™17:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I have boldly reduced the number of junctions in the A1 infobox, not to motorways only but motorways plus major long-distance dual carriageways, a total of 15, by including only those roads shown at the most zoomed-out level at https://streetmap.co.uk/, to see what it looks like. Thoughts? Dr Greg talk 14:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Should we do the same with other articles, because otherwise the infobox is too big. Some articles with a large amount of roads in their infobox include the following:
A38 - with 57 junctions
A361 - with 34 junctions
A417 - with 18 junctions
A429 - with 20 junctions
I will make a full list over on my userpage, of which I'll add a link to the list. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC) (edited at 18:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC))
Three questions. What defines a national vs. A road? Can whatever defines them be used a source? Does the UK have AADT tables or similar that can be used as a reference for crossroads, as opposed to Sabre? In Ontario we have AADT tables that delineate roads and mention the intersections that the province has deemed notable enough to include in the table, and I use this to build junction tables. It may not be available online, but surely there is either a freedom of information precedure or a engineering/urban affairs library collection? I guarantee it's out there, it just has to be found/looked up. - Floydianτ¢22:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
In fact the correct terminology is primary route, not "national route". Their purpose is to provide links between primary destinations which are decided at a national level, and are listed at List of primary destinations on the United Kingdom road network. Primary routes use green signs such as A6; all other roads use white signs (A6053) except for motorways (M6). However, a given road number need not be primary for its whole length. This means that if the {{jct}} template displays a green sign, that means that at least one part of the road is a primary route, but not necessarily the whole length. And that assumes that the icons on Wikipedia Commons have been kept up-to-date. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
When I looked into this a few years ago, I found that there is no longer any official national list of primary routes; decisions to change the primary route network are made locally by the relevant local authority. The conclusion I came to was that the best source for primary status was Ordnance Survey (OS) maps, which are produced by a government mapping agency so should be reliable, with the proviso that when a change occurs there may be a delay before the change is seen in published maps. (I think the local authorities are supposed to notify OS when a change is made.) And the most convenient website for viewing OS maps is, in my opinion, https://streetmap.co.uk. This shows several different OS maps at various magnifications, and all except the 1:25000 show primary routes in green. These online maps are also sold in paper versions. (The paper versions have a publication date; I can't find any publication dates on StreetMap, maybe there are other websites that do.) I would say that if all the different scales show a road in green, that's enough to establish that it's a primary route. If the different scales disagree then that may mean that a recent change hasn't made its way into all the versions, so you may need to find further evidence elsewhere. Dr Greg talk 13:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
StreetMap just provides access to maps that are surveyed by and published by the UK government's mapping agency Ordnance Survey (OS). You can access OS maps by buying a paper copy or by viewing them on OS's own website, or on Bing Maps. StreetMap is just a convenient method to access the official government maps. If you really think that StreetMap are displaying fake impersonations of the real maps, other sources of OS maps are available. Dr Greg talk 23:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
We can't use non-expert SPS as hosts either, longstanding consensus on that because of the catch-22 that you can't know if they're hosting a genuine copy unless you have a copy from a reliable source and if you've got a reliable copy then you don't need the SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
A reliable source that is offline is preferable to an unreliable source that is online. I can not point to that consensus off hand, you are welcome to ask about it wherever questions about reliability are asked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The burden is on you bud. Both to indicate the online source is unreliable, and that there is any consensus against linking to them. Floydianτ¢02:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago76 comments14 people in discussion
Well, this rule of "Citing Each & Every Paragraph" seems to be affecting the content shown on some "road articles", especially recently-created ones. The rule is only enforced by "some" strict editors on road articles apparently.
I recently created an article named M18 (Pretoria), as part of my project of giving each Metropolitan Route in Pretoria its own article. Then, I went to check it out today & I saw the entire "Route" section erased by User:Onel5969; he only left the "first paragraph" because there was a "citation" referring to a road name change. I tried to put back the Information and was told again to "cite my work", almost accused of Disruptive Editing. Only the Introduction has citations, which I believe is the norm for most road articles that have already been accepted.
So, User:Onel5969 only left the "first paragraph" under the "Route" section of M18 (Pretoria) and I was wondering why he would start a story without finishing it (saying "the road starts at this junction and goes this direction" without completing the section); by default, I instead finished erasing the entire section for him! Then, I went to check on "older" road articles for the same nation of South Africa, such as the M11 (Johannesburg), N18 (South Africa), N3 (South Africa), N1 (South Africa) & R21 (South Africa) articles and realized that they are in Exactly the same situation of the entire "Route" section not having citations.
I went to the M6 (Pretoria) article and also found the "Route" section erased. I began to wonder why my articles, which are only several weeks old, were Edited like that while those older articles are not being touched by any editor for the enforcement of that "Cite Each & Every Paragraph" Rule! From Every "road article" I have ever created, I have never faced this challenge of being told to "cite" the "Route" section; these M6 & M18 articles are the first ones where I have seen the "Route" section removed.
So, for those articles of mine where the "Route" section has been erased, which websites would you recommend to be used as citations on "Each & Every Paragraph"? Are Google Maps and OpenStreetMap good enough?
Nowhere in WP:V does it say every paragraph needs a citation. WP:V says all content needs to be verifiable, and any material whose veracity could be challenged needs a reliable inline citation, with a significantly lower threshold for derogatory claims about living people. In fact, at one time, WP:V used to explicitly say that "The sky is blue" does NOT need an inline citation. That was back in a simpler time in Wikipedialand. The essay (not policy) Wikipedia:When to cite has some guidelines, but again, it's an essay, so not a mandate. However the problem is what is likely to be challenged and what isn't is a huge gray area. What is obvious to one is not to another. Also per those same guidelines, if there is a disagreement on if something needs a citation, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not the person skeptical of the claim. My personal thoughts, I also am frustrated with the "Citation Karens", they can be almost as bad as the "tag Karens". However, while frustrating, they are on the right side of Wikipedia policy. However, yes, you can cite a route description to a map or satellite image, within reason. See WP:MAPCITE for more of my opinions on that subject.
However, now that I've said that, I'll say this. I read the deleted route description and it is basically a junctions list in prose format. I can't judge you for that, as there's hundreds of road articles whose route description is the same thing. However, IMHO, the entire reason why we create junction tables and straight line diagrams, because that type of information is more quickly conveyed in table form. I prefer route descriptions to tell me what I can't gleam from a table. Is this an urban road, does it cross farmland, mountains, rivers? Any scenery or historical events or landmarks anybody driving this road should be aware of? Those are the route descriptions that I think are good. As an added bonus, that information can be sourced to travel guides, newspaper articles, and topographical maps, so your route description will have more than just Google maps as a source. Granted some roads are frankly notable but boring and there isn't much of that type of content to add to a route descriptions. But I always at least try to include that content. Just my $.02. Dave (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Onel5969: I think you have the actually policy a bit wrong. The "in a nutshell" there says:
Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.
The key word there, for me, is "attributable", which is not the same as "attributed". In short, can we add a citation for the content, not is one present. BLPs, certain statistics, direct quotations, etc. need citations, but per that policy, the rest actually doesn't unless you want to challenge everything. Imzadi 1979→13:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
There are significant walls of text here that I don't have time to read.
@Chils Kemptonian: presumably you used a map or two to craft the original route description. Just restore your original content and place citations to that map/those maps at the end of each paragraph.
When I write a new route description, I plot out the driving directions from end to end in Google Maps, and then switch to the satellite layer. Now I have a source for the landscape details I will be putting in my writing. I also cross reference the directions against the official state highway map. So I put a pair of footnotes at the end of each paragraph: the paper map and Google Maps. Sometimes I have to interweave other sources for other details, but this is my basic template that's used on articles assessed at all levels of the scale. Imzadi 1979→08:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, when you have a moment, please search for "Category:Metropolitan Routes in Pretoria" and review every article that is under that Category! Every article there was created by me recently and most if not all of them were reviewed by User:Imzadi1979 & User:SunDawn. Anyway, I guess just looking at the way the M6 (Pretoria) and M18 (Pretoria) articles were treated automatically means that I need to edit my approach, right?
One more time, please compare the N18 (South Africa)#Route content to the content that was erased from the M6 (Pretoria) route section. I still can't understand why we are enforcing this rule on "selected" articles and not all of them!
Sometimes I wonder where GPSs get their information from, as it is difficult for an ordinary citizen to know where to find a "book", "website" or just any source that has all the roads listed!
When I created articles for Roads in Zambia in recent years, I would specifically cite the "Roads & Road Traffic Amendment Act, Cap 464", as every single "numbered route" is listed in there as well as the towns they pass through. But for Numbered routes in South Africa, I do not see any better citation than Google Earth, since South Africa has Road Signs on 99% of its roads; but finding other citations might be difficult.
Every one of the Metropolitan Routes in Johannesburg, from M1 to M99, has got its own article on Wikipedia and I am currently trying to do the same thing for Roads in Pretoria. But in case I don't have proper citations, I might just have to resort to creating those articles with Introductions and Infoboxes only. Chils Kemptonian (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Saying "article X does it this way, so why can't I do the same with article Y" doesn't help. The goal is to make all articles better. There's something like 3 million articles in Wikipedia, and no one person can review them all, so of course there's going to be some articles that are more heavily scrutinized than others. I don't believe going around and tagging every flaw I see in an article helps the encyclopedia; nor do I do blanket deletions of content that I don't think 100% complies with Wikipedia policies. If I'm brutally honest, I don't have a high opinion of editors who do such things. I'd rather do a quick edit of an article and fix a flaw or two for that same amount of effort, even knowing there are more flaws in the article I haven't fixed. In my opinion a flawed article, that needs re-writing or more sources, yet adequately describes the subject, is educational, and is consistent with what little I know or can find on other sites about the topic is of much more value than a 2 sentence sourced stub that only states the blatantly obvious, or one that has more colorful tags than text. But neither of us is the king of Wikipedia and weather we like it or not, Wikipedia policy does allow for such behavior. The long term solution is to improve the article so that there are no grounds to tag or blank parts of the article.
For the short term I understand your frustration, but don't give up. Just do the best you can with what you have. Though I was a bit critical of the route description you wrote that was deleted, I accept that all could have been obtained from a map and not be considered original research. So for now just add the map you used while writing that as a source. However I'd still improve it for the long term. I primarily write about roads in the USA, where we're fortunate that the US and Interstate highways are well documented in the relevant government agency's logs. (However, that's not true for many locally maintained roads). Until recently, this was very much not the case for rail lines in the USA. Most articles about rail lines in the USA only had historical information, if they had details about length, termini, distances, etc. it was either unsourced or sourced to Google maps or an outdated paper map. But finally the FRA put official GIS data on their website a few years ago, and in the last 3-4 years, the article quality for US rail articles has significantly improved. I understand completely when you say I work on roads in this country, but the ministry of transport's web site is useless. While not the best, you can still gleam quite a bit of info from Google Maps and still stay within the bounds of Wikipedia policies about No original research and verifiability. Google maps includes a distance measuring tool that is accurate to 1 km, Google does state the actual publisher of the data they used for the map (Google does not actually draft maps, they publish the work of others). Google includes satellite and topo views, which are usually derived independently, again they list the publisher, as a check that the information in the map is correct. So using Google maps is often actually using 2-3 independent sources. Most governments publish either a paper or online map that would be considered an official source. Don't neglect paper maps. You'd be surprised what you can do with with a paper map. Before Google Maps included it's distance utility, I used two pins, a string, and the map scale to measure distances, and even that was accurate to 2-3km. It can be done. Have you tried emailing the contact on the website for the Ministry of Transport? I've been pleasantly surprised how helpful they have been, even if their website sucks. The Utah Department of Transportation once responded to my questions with a report, that they didn't think were worthy of publishing on their website, but contained valuable info for a Wikipedia article. Last but not least, don't neglect searching the local newspaper's archives. You'd be surprised what highway information can be found there. Any time there's a major accident, or a dedication of a new highway, the newspaper will usually cite some transportation study or quote someone from the ministry of Transport. Dave (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
But remember what I said in my initial scenario. It is not right to "start a story without finishing it". So, if the "Route" section is going to be erased from an article, it's best to erase the "Entite" section and not to pick specific paragraphs to remove! Mentioning that "story" quarter-way or even halfway would constitute incompleteness. That's what I suggest. Chils Kemptonian (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the actions by Onel5969 in these situations as I believe the interpretation of policies to be wrong and the deletions to be very heavy-handed and said as much on my talk page recently, and I think that the editor is being overly zealous to challenge content for the sake of challenging, especially when consistency would require said editor to start deleting sections from potentially thousands of articles to enforce this viewpoint. However, there is an easier solution than arguing these points ad infinitum without resolution, resorting to the drama boards, etc.
Roads4117, as I noted in a previous comment to this overall thread, presumably you used some sort of map citation in crafting the route description in the article. If so, just place a citation to that map at the end of each paragraph, and this editor can no longer say it is uncited. Seriously, route descriptions are the absolute easiest prose in a highway article to cite because the driving directions from terminus to terminus in Google Maps showing the satellite view will cover most of the content of the section. Just export the link and paste it into {{google maps}} with an appropriate descriptive title and the access date, and you are done. It's even better to also provide an appropriate official road map from the agency that owns/maintains the roadway, or even a citation to a map in a commercially printed atlas (like Rand McNally for the US and Canada). Imzadi 1979→22:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for each saying in one sentence what I took 3 paragraphs to explain. I can be verbose sometimes ;) Dave (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Has been reported to ANI - is now not doing it just to road articles, but to everything. If we don't act, then it will more than likely get out of control Roads4117 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing in route descriptions (continued)
Of course we need to follow our basic policies and guidelines in the "Route Section." It has the same requirement to be sourced that any other content does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Here from ANI to say the exact same. Sourcing is not optional, at all. I understand that means many (most?) route sections will be deleted; That's the point. If you can't find a reliable source with the information, you have to ask yourself how relevant that information really is. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Again, as I said there: nobody is disputing that "sourcing is not optional". What we have a problem with is the "bull in a china shop" method that was used to enforce this. --Rschen775418:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The content still exists in the article history and can always be restored if any reliable sourcing is ever found for it. In the meantime One's actions seem entirely appropriate per WP:ONUS and WP:VERIFY. Make the article policy compliant rather than complain about someone who takes policy seriously. (t · c) buidhe19:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@Buidhe: This exact situation is outlined in WP:BURDEN: In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. While this is technically allowable, outright removal was the wrong tool for the job and confused multiple editors - please look at who started this thread. --Rschen775400:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a factual description of what might happen when you remove unsourced content, but that does not mean the objectors are right. If you don't want text to be removed, then add references (if any exist) and restore the text. Don't ask someone else to do the work. (t · c) buidhe00:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Isn't a better question to ask why there was china in the shop to begin with? The content of Wikipedia articles should be robust and durable, if it can't withstand scrutiny it should never have been added in the first place. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
There are over 6.5 million articles on this site. If you are volunteering to go and remove anything and everything unsourced from them, be my guest. --Rschen775400:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Much easier to prevent than fix, a single edit which blocks a disruptive editor can prevent a thousand bad edits. Why your wikiproject encourages such disruptive editors instead of either reforming then or marking them for admin action is a question you need to be asking yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Where are we encouraging it? What we are discouraging is the biting of newcomers, especially to areas outside North America that receive far less attention in this project. The response would also be far different if such edits were made to FA or GA articles, as opposed to filling in some information to a stub/start that can be improved by a copyeditor and sourced by someone familiar with digging up that information (which, down the road, may very well be the same editor adding the crud initially, should they not be scared off by editors that have overcome that initial hurdle of Wikipedia). Editor retention is far more important than maintaining immaculate stubs. - Floydianτ¢01:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Chils Kemptonian and Roads4117 are not newbies yet this wikiproject has allowed them to be incredibly disruptive. Fredddie is definitely not a newbie and yet they seem to have the exact same disregard for WP:RS as the rest of the group... These don't appear to be isolated bad apples, it looks like the whole bushel needs to take a good hard look at their lives and contributions to this project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
One can't defend unsourced original research just because it's existed for a while. Doesn't matter if it's a "bull in a china shop" if some china is in need of breaking. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure you read in my initial scenario that I mentioned something about "Starting a story without finishing it", meaning that User:Onel5969 clearly didn't care about how the article would look after he would click "Publish Changes", as long as the specific "uncited material" was removed. Leaving the first few paragraphs & erasing the rest would leave the section incomplete; it's either you do not erase or you erase everything! So, I appeal that that editor should not "Pick which paragraphs to remove" (remove everything or remove nothing) on route sections of road articles. As User:Roads4117 said in his initial reply, mentioning an "X to Z" route only up to point "Y" without "finishing the scenario" wouldn't make sense!
To be honest, I cited a "street name change" somewhere in the middle of the route and User:Onel5969 automatically thought that anything "before the citation" can stay and anything "from the next full stop onwards" (not next paragraph, but next full stop) should be erased.
I also asked, I believe at the end of that initial scenario, which "GPS Websites" would be "good-enough" to be used as citations. For now, I've resorted to using Google Earth (which is generally Google Maps in Street View edition), since South Africa is very-consistent with its road signage in these big cities. For now, this is what I use to prove that "what I write is not made up". I'm sure I'll eventually find a better source.
For "citing sources", I do agree that User:Onel5969 was a little too harsh on me, but I think I have learnt my lesson here and I do not think we needed to go further than the part where I said "thanks for the replies, everybody; I now understand". User:Dave & User:Imzadi1979 gave me enough information to close the case; I also saw how User:Rschen7754 went to edit the M6 (Pretoria) article just after this talk, which I am very thankful for.
So, I am no-longer the complainant here. I've generally accepted that there are some editors who would leave the "citation needed" tag in an article and others that would erase the content immediately. I guess we have no right to force either to change, no matter how harsh it may seem.
User:Roads4117 needs to be careful in the way he argues this case. Me, I came here to "seek advice" & I have got my answers; so, I know exactly what I have to do to "prevent" information from being erased from articles that I declare myself responsible for (or to "add back" any removed content). User:Roads4117 can continue debating the point without my input; I think I know what I have to do to avoid any "harsh administrator" from removing content that I write.
This was the part where you needed to discourage them from continuing to use google earth/maps. You had the perfect chance to prove that you don't enable disruptive behavior and you blew it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I hope you mean that you will not be using google earth anymore. If you use google earth again you're most likely going to get banned or blocked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, Too Bad For Me! I'll automatically forfeit creating articles under the Metropolitan Routes in Pretoria category at this point, since "Satellite Imagery of the Roads of South Africa" does not qualify as a proper reference and I haven't yet found any "Book", "Legislation", "Website", etc that has all the "Metropolitan Routes" listed from M1 to M44! It was worth a try; I surrender! If I will create any further articles, then I will just have to write the "Introduction & Infobox" only, which I do not think is enough to bring to Wikipedia! After seeing what has been done to the M18 (Pretoria) article, I am very-discouraged to attempt doing anything like that again!
There are several users I know who have done very well with "South African Road Articles"; I won't mention their names here for fear of getting them in trouble! I guess I am a victim of "Since Article X was accepted like this, I am Sure Article Y will also be accepted like this", as I mentioned in my earlier comments! Too bad; for fear of being banned, let me take a long break from this website/application; I will not come back anytime soon, since I have clearly failed to "fit in" with the resources available to me. Until the "City of Tshwane" (& "South Africa" in general) has a proper book that details "each & every route" in it, I will refrain from touching any article that represents "Roads in South Africa"! I am very sad to think that a "South African Road Sign" is not enough proof to show that "what I am writing is not made up"; I am very sad.
Oh Well, I wish somebody warned me before I "Joined Wikipedia" that things such as "Google Earth", in the countries where it is operational, do not qualify to show the people that "what I want to contribute is not made up"! I do not know how all the other Numbered routes in South Africa are surviving being checked while my articles were easy-victims... Anyway, as I said, I will "take a break" now; I am actually regretting bringing this matter here, as I can only feel like I have made things worse for enough editors and not just me! Chils Kemptonian (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes 100% non-sarcastically you should only create pages for WP:NOTABLE topics. I'm sorry, thats something you should have been told long long before now. I agree that you're also a victim here and were led astray by people who should have helped you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Nevermind the opinion of the editors who have no experience with content creation. WP:MAPCITE and a decade and a half of experience with GAs and FAs have shown us what the actual standard is, and it's pretty easy to sum up: A map can be used to demonstrate what is or was at the time of its publication. It can't tell you that it's new, old, or that it just changed, it can tell you what it was at that time.
Google Maps/Earth is no good for this purpose, as it is a dynamic map that updates constantly. What it is fine for is a rough idea of terrain, direction, and street names. It should almost never be used on it's own, but rather in tandem with a published paper map (or nowadays, PDF for many government-made road maps).
Map analysis is when you start using multiple layers of GIS data to create your own observation of some statistic or demographic, not the elementary task of reading a map with a ruler and that nice big calculator between your eyes. If the big red line on the map, which the legend says represents A roads, has a number and it follows Jesus Street, Mary Avenue and Joseph Boulevard from the parish of Worchishestishire to the town of Bollocks, you are completely fine using a published map as the reference to state as such. - Floydianτ¢20:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Can you explain it to me in another context? If I was to take a first edition book and my ruler, get for example the size of the font, and then add the size of the font in the first edition to the page about the book would that be original research? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Those are all words, but I'm not sure what meaning they convey in the order that you've put them in... If you had a book of typographical fonts, and there was a scale on the front page that said "<----> this height is 14pt", and you used a ruler to see that the font on page 73 was 14pt, you have not performed an analysis; you've used the item for its intended purpose. - Floydianτ¢21:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Does route number two go from Windsor to Tilbury and beyond via Maidstone and Ruscon, or does it go through Amherstburg, over to McGregor, north to Tecumseh, over to Belle River, down to Leamington and across the lake to the south? Unless you're overAnal-ysing it, its the former.You're right. The absolute only reason I'm making a distinction is because you have used the term analysis in an improper context. Reading is analysing. But we don't have WP:ANAL (well, not for that reason, though I believe, with strong conviction, that link applies here). But we do have WP:CALC, and I think that applies to maps the most. Anyone who's been in the boy scouts or is over the age of 35 knows how to read a map, just like everyone in the literate world can read. Nobody says "You can't use that book, you analysed it and that's OR"... of course you analysed it! The entire basis of writing a tertiary source like Wikipedia is to analyse multiple sources and to summarise them in a user-friendly manner. - Floydianτ¢01:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I have a nautical science background so I'm not a neophyte or a boyscout when it comes to maps. We generally consider it to be analysis of the written word when you come to a conclusion that is not stated in the source, I'm not sure how the same isn't true of a map. For example on a map distance can not be determined without analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Using a map to source distance is really a last resort when there are no government documents to give the exact length, because the precision that one can give is limited. I struggle to think of a time I have done so. --Rschen775401:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand this "last resort" attitude, nothing *needs* to be included in wikipedia if its not published in a reliable secondary source. We never need to use primaries like that, its better to just not use it. The rule isn't "OR only as a last resort" its "no OR" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not OR when a map has a scale on it. You use a ruler. The scale doesn't change from place to place, it is a constant. "One inch on this map is 1 mile". So if Notre Dame is 1/8 of an inch from Boulevarde du Palais on that map, you are not doing original research by saying "Notre Dame is located approximately 1/8 mi from Boulevarde du Palais." - Floydianτ¢01:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
What about when using google earth pro? I can't take a ruler to my computer, am I required to print out a screenshot at a known scale? I can't use google's ruler tool because it does complex analysis on top of the existing source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I can't speak to that. The articles I write only make the very occasional use of measurement via Google (e.x. "The divided highway ends approximately 300 metres (1000 feet) north of King Street", from Conestoga Parkway). However, I disagree with it being complex analysis. Google uses Universal Transverse Mercator measurements, which as I imagine you know, consist of a northing and easting, relative to various points on the equator (I'm in 17N, so that's about 85d 30' W). From there, a distance between any two points is simple trig. But to your original point, why not? If you take a screenshot and the scale is 100px long and represent 100m, each pixel is a metre and your significant digits are rounded to the nearest 100m. Your measurement is now in the 99th percentile and is, for all intensive purposes, correct. All that said, I don't approve of Google as a "high quality" reliable source (for WP:WIAFA purposes), but it is a verifiable source that anybody can access. - Floydianτ¢02:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, the tool on my google earth also seems to take topography into account... A line over a hill is longer than a line over a field. That is wayyyyy beyond what I can do on paper and not equivalent (one of the reasons I love marine navigation, its flaaaaaat babyyyyyyyyyyy). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe it does. Directions perhaps, but search up Angel Falls and drag a line from the top of the mesa to the bottom. It'll say 0.5km instead of the at least 3km it would with topography. - Floydianτ¢03:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I didn't even know there was a paid version. I'm using GE Pro, terrain layer turned on (to enable elevations). What does yours give for the measurement I just mentioned? Even a km by the crow across that ridge should give 3.15km if elevation was taken into account.
But, to digress, this is why significant digits and 95th-99th percentiles are important, to get rid of those variations. In most cases, this is simply called editorial judgement on Wikipedia (for example, the plethora of genres you could list for a band like Queen) - Floydianτ¢03:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Well yes, but when you have 23 sources that say Glam rock, 14 that say stadium rock, 20 that say album-oriented/concept, 12 that say progressive rock, 6 that say hard rock, 4 that say new wave, etc etc... at some point you just say fuck it and put "rock". Now translate that idea to distances. If you draw the same line 50 times, at a scale of 1 metre, and come up with an average of 14,575 metres, you say 14.6km. - Floydianτ¢02:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
In that case we would reflect them proportional to the coverage they've received making sure to include all major views, thats what WP:NPOV is for. We currently categorize Queen as art rock, hard rock, heavy metal, progressive rock, and progressive pop. Within the article itself we talk about hard rock, heavy metal, progressive rock, arena rock, pop rock, glam rock, operatic pop, psychedelic rock, baroque pop, and rockabilly... We also discuss their dabbling in or being influenced by dance, disco, funk, funk rock, R&B, and opera, music hall, folk music, gospel, and ragtime. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
So is the genre in the infobox original research, or editorial discretion, based on an analysis of available sources? In either case, how is a bunch of maps different? - Floydianτ¢05:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I assume because of extensive and exhaustive talk page discussion. Maps are primary sources. I can no more assemble an article on roads using maps as sources as I can assemble an article on military equipment using pictures as sources (something we have longstanding and board base consensus on, just because you have an authentic picture of a firearm in the service of a military does not mean you can add it to the list of weapons used by that military). What is the difference between basic but original analysis of a map and basic but original analysis of a picture? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, the editor I mentioned in my initial scenario (User:Onel5969) went to the lengthy N1 (South Africa) article about a week ago and placed a "more citations needed" tag at the beginning of the article.
I'm actually surprised that he didn't decide to wipe out the lengthy 19 paragraphs under the "Route" section of the article.
Then, User:Horse Eye's Back went to the N4 (South Africa) & R21 (South Africa) articles and added the "more citations needed" tag at the top.
Again, I am convinced that this idea of "erasing content from an article" is MAINLY being done to "recently-created articles". I do not know what else to believe apart from this! Somebody tell me why they are being "lenient" to old articles but "strict" to newer ones! I'm failing to understand...
I believe the thought process is that old articles have been that way and while deficient, tagging at least marks it in hope that someone someday will fix the problem. With a new article, removing uncited text keeps the encyclopedia overall from degrading further and since there is "active" editor, it is more likely to get fixed if the content is removed. MB14:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The group they are part of is whose actions resulted in this discussion is called "New Page Patrol", however this is a self-appointed group with no official authority. (There is an associated user right that makes the task easier, but they are their own project and do not have any additional authority over editors and all their edits are subject to consensus and other Wikipedia policies). --Rschen775414:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
So, First, I brought up the matter here at the beginning; then, somewhere along the line, User:Horse Eye's Back joined the conversation & that's where it became ugly! It seems as though we "launched a manhunt" for "uncited road material"! When he removed more than 24000 bytes from the Special routes of U.S. Route 76 article, he chose to say "What the FUCK is going on here" on the edit description. (Literally using "the F word", which I think shouldn't be accepted)
This editor went to enough "U.S. Route" articles just to erase content in recent hours, which offended a certain editor (I won't mention the user) & which automatically made me think this person has no shred of kindness (what did we do to "awaken the beast").
I was ready to "end this discussion" as soon as User:Dave made his last reply but watching what happened afterwards has just made me feel bad! This "beast who has awoken" is not making anybody feel better; he is just making plenty of enemies for himself!
Anyway, don't mind my language; I am still ditching this website; User:Horse Eye's Back makes some of us feel VERY unwelcomed & I can't stand being part of a team where a "mean person" exists! See you in a few months, Wikipedia!
Just for the record, I totally understand why User:Onel5969 did what he did, BUT I cannot understand why User:Horse Eye's Back is doing what he is doing! Chils Kemptonian (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
That was a less than charitable edit summary, but I was truly shocked by what I saw. Also note that you've made a less than charitable summary of my edit summary it was "Entire text is OR... What the fuck is going on here?"[3]Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I would submit that Horse Eye's Back's interpretation of WP:RS is so out of step with the rest of the community's interpretation of same that any further contemplation of it is wholly without merit. If the use of a source is judged acceptable at FAC, then it is acceptable everywhere. {{Cite map}} is transcluded 31,916 times, and {{Google maps}} is transcluded 14,760 times—if the community agreed that maps, and specifically Google Maps, could not be used as sources, that assuredly would have been decided before those transclusion counts reached four digits, much less five. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]02:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
You're not gonna convince me having entirely unsourced sections where the entire point of it is making a map less readable (you're taking an image and putting it in prose, which doesn't help with describing directions or a map at all) is a good thing. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Hi there. I recently took on the challenge of improving the A68 road article after seeing it being discussed at WP:ANI as an exemplar of how worthless and unverifiable many roads articles are. Here is what it looked like then, and here is where I got it to with some searching for sources. Took a few hours but it wasn't too hard. My point is that the article had for a long time contained the claim that the E15 followed the A68. I found this rather surprising; surely they would have chosen the A1 which is a far better (though less beautiful) road between Edinburgh and Newcastle? I wasn't able to find any evidence for the A68 claim, but dug up this fairly credible online mapping source which shows (as expected) that it follows the A1. The whole topic of E roads in the UK is arguably not that important or encyclopedic, seeing that they are not signed in this country. But we need always to back things up with reliable sources, even something as obvious-seeming as the itinerary that a road takes, or else we expose ourselves to hoaxes (or, let's be charitable, egregious errors) that can discredit our project. Please, please, be vigilant for stuff like this. John (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The only reference in the E15 article is this PDF, and the total that has on the E15 route is in total E 15 Inverness - Perth - Edinburgh - Newcastle - Scotch - Corner - Doncaster - London - Folkestone - Dover ... Calais - Paris - Lyon - Orange - Narbonne - Gerona - Barcelona - Tarragona - Castellón de la Plana - Valencia - Alicante - Murcia - Algeciras. There are two external links, a table and a map, neither of which add any verification to all the connecting road data that makes up most of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The false information was added here by an editor who has not edited in years. The same editor started the E15 page, with the erroneous information, completely unsourced. That article has been corrected over the years, but the A68 one had false information on it for 16 years. We need to be on the lookout for unverifiable stuff being added, and be prepared to tag, source or delete that which is not verifiable. John (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
A fine example of why nothing is exempt from WP:V. Better to properly cite uncited information than have no information, and better to have no information than something false. Thanks for rewriting the article! Ovinus (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
A further example of verification, though in this case most definitely not a hoax, the A635 is well-known for running along the site of the Moors murders at Saddleworth Moor; this fact was added by an IP in 2013,([6]) but has remained unsourced for over nine years, while the parent article sat as an FA for most of that time. The rest of the article is mostly unsourced as well. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Communication tools
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
(cross-posted to all HWY subprojects)
The road projects have faced some challenges over recent weeks. While we remain separate projects, I believe we need to be able to work together during this time. Thus, I wanted to highight three recent changes to the methods of communication and collaboration that we have available to us.
Template:HWY Announcements - this template lists important discussions as well as certain cleanup categories used across all the road projects/
WP:HWY/AAA - this is an Article Alerts page that will be updated with every AFD, GAN, FAC, etc. in every road project. Please consider watchlisting this to stay on top of important discussions.
Discord - When Wikimedia IRC on Freenode was shut down, we chose not to migrate to the Libera IRC server. We use the #wpengineering channel on Discord, a more modern chat platform. (It is possible to read the channel history so that you do not miss out on conversations when not logged in, unlike IRC. But for that reason, please consider anything you say there to be public).
A6; all other roads use white signs (
A6053) except for motorways (
M6). However, a given road number need not be primary for its whole length. This means that if the 
