User talk:MPD01605
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|---|
| 1 |
Contents |
[edit] I-74 exit list
My fear with the exit list is that it's so speculative at this point, it might not be useful. I'd prefer not to put it in the article until NCDOT formalizes it. I think an external link to the list is absolutely the way to approach it. Making the exit list on the talk page is another possibility. Then, if it crystalizes the way the speculation goes, it's very easy to move to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I just reformatted Interstate 77 in Virginia and pointed referenced WP:IH/ELG to show that there is consensus that it is the preferred formatting for the exit lists. I guess we'll just see what happens. —C.Fred (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Interstate 74 (east)
I am changing this redirect back to Interstate 74, since South Carolina is also building their piece. --NE2 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I-5 Exit list help
I've seen the problem happen, so I know what's probably driving it. Finding where may be the challenge. I'll take a look, though. —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- That was actually fun. (Yes, I'm weird. :) ) I knew what happened is some rows had an extra column in them; I wrote a Perl program to scan the table and find them. It was exits 71, 710 and 786. You might want to look at Exit 71—I think that was a road and its destination across two columns initially, and I combined them onto one. If I did that wrong, sorry about that. The other two exits were just extra blank columns on the end, so that was real easy to fix. But, it's cleaned up now. Not a problem at all. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Interstate 74
I see from your edit summary when you reverted my changes that they were not "in line with standards". Could you direct me to the appropriate standards, so I don't make future mistakes? Also, you reverted changes I had made in the "External links" section, where I replaced US Postal codes with the full state name (in this case, NC with North Carolina). Am I correct that this was an oversight on your part, or is that replacement also not in line with standards? –RHolton≡– 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I can understand your points about the use of state abbreviations to conserve space in the various boxes. Might I suggest, however, that traditional abbreviations would be better suited than postal abbreviations? The postal abbreviations were designed specifically for optical character recognition, not for human ease of use. The postal codes are particularly vexing for those who are not from the US. My personal first choice would still be to use fully spelled-out names, but... –RHolton≡– 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
